Case 6007403/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I Antosiewicz v Shifting Paradigms Ltd t/a British Nannies — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007403/2024
- Decision date
- 25 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I Antosiewicz
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Reading Employment Tribunal by CVP on 24 February 2025 before Employment Judge George. The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal found that Miss I Antosiewicz was not an employee of Shifting Paradigms Ltd t/a British Nannies within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, not an employee within section 83 of the Equality Act 2010, and not a worker within section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On those findings, the claim was dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and not a worker within section 230(3) of that Act. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within section 83 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 83 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.