Case 6011699/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Naim Ahmad Chowdhury v Karia Befriending Care Agency Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011699/2025
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Comfort Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Naim Ahmad Chowdhury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that, at the material time, the claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal also found that, at the material time, the claimant was not a worker of the respondent within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissed all claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The short judgment states that all claims are dismissed because the claimant was not an employee or worker at the material time; no written reasons or claim-specific analysis are provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The short judgment states that all claims are dismissed because the claimant was not an employee or worker at the material time; no written reasons or claim-specific analysis are provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The short judgment states that all claims are dismissed because the claimant was not an employee or worker at the material time; no written reasons or claim-specific analysis are provided. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The short judgment states that all claims are dismissed because the claimant was not an employee or worker at the material time; no written reasons or claim-specific analysis are provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The short judgment states that all claims are dismissed because the claimant was not an employee or worker at the material time; no written reasons or claim-specific analysis are provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230(3)(b) 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.