Case 6008239/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N McGill v Mphasis UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008239/2024
- Decision date
- 1 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N McGill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Keogh gave oral reasons at the hearing on 1 April 2025 and struck out the claim in full. The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider it, the reason given being that the claimant had insufficient service.
The Tribunal also struck out the remaining complaints. It said it had no jurisdiction to consider the unlawful deductions from wages and discrimination complaints because the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent for the purposes of section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 83(2) Equality Act 2010. The judgment refers to discrimination generically and does not identify the protected characteristic(s).
In addition, the Tribunal said the claim was an abuse of process because the claimant had not complied with section 18A(8) Employment Tribunals Act 1996 by obtaining an ACAS certificate before presenting the claim. It also found the claim had been brought out of time and that time was not extended, and added that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint as the claimant had insufficient service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out because the Tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to consider the unlawful deductions complaint; it found the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent for section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers generically to 'discrimination' and does not specify the protected characteristic(s). The Tribunal struck out those complaints because it said the claimant was not an employee or worker for section 83(2) Equality Act 2010, the claim was an abuse of process for failure to obtain an ACAS certificate under section 18A(8) Employment Tribunals Act 1996, it was out of time, and it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 83(2) Equality Act 2010
- section 18A(8) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- out of time
- no reasonable prospect of success
- abuse of process
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.