Case 6012163/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Simanaviciene v Providing Care Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012163/2024
- Decision date
- 10 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms L Simanaviciene
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was a worker of the first respondent under s230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996, but was not employed by it. The tribunal found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the second respondent, so the second respondent was dismissed from the proceedings.
The tribunal found insufficient mutuality of obligation to establish employee status. It noted that the claimant was regularly offered work and accepted it, but the evidence did not show an obligation on either side to provide or accept work.
As a result, the automatic unfair dismissal claim could not proceed because it required employee status. The whistleblowing detriment claim continues against the first respondent only, with a final hearing listed for 26-29 May 2026.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant was not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment claim under s47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was not finally determined in this judgment and continues against the first respondent only. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Hafal Ltd v Lane-Angell EAT 0107/17
- James v Greenwich London Borough Council
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.