Case 6002513/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs E Kirk v Lishmans LLP and 1 other — 2024

Case reference: 6002513/2023
Decision date: 27 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Deeley Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mrs E Kirk

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Price emailed the Tribunal on 23 May 2024 saying that he wished to withdraw the response on behalf of both respondents. The judgment was therefore issued under Rule 21. The Tribunal upheld the claimant's complaint of whistleblowing detriment. It recorded that the remedy would be determined later at a Remedy Hearing, so no monetary award was fixed in this decision.

The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction because the claimant had stated that she was a 'worker' and not an 'employee' for the purposes of s.230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that unfair dismissal complaints can only be brought by employees under Part X of the Act.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The complaint was described as a whistleblowing detriment claim. Liability was upheld, and the remedy was to be determined at a Remedy Hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the claimant stated she was a 'worker' and not an 'employee' for the purposes of s.230 ERA 1996. The claim was therefore dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.