Case 6003247/2024 · Employment Tribunal
A Niepel v R Thompson and G Smith [As trustees for and on behalf of the members of the Hale Lawn Tennis Club] PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003247/2024
- Decision date
- 26 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records the outcome of a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone. The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent club.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was a contract worker within the meaning of section 41 of the Equality Act 2010. It further found that Mark Furness, James Anderson and Giles Chesher were not employees of the respondent club, and that Giles Chesher was at the material time the club's President and a member of the club.
No remedy was awarded in the written judgment, and the merits of the listed claims were not determined in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment only. The tribunal decided the claimant was a contract worker within section 41 of the Equality Act 2010, but did not determine the merits of the discrimination claim. | Other | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Preliminary hearing judgment only. The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent club, but did not state a final outcome on any wages claim. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The listing refers to written statements. The judgment records employment status findings but does not state a final outcome for any written statement claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 41 of the Equality Act 2010
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.