Case 6013440/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M Prosper v Stratus Security Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013440/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Smart
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr. M Prosper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal determined employment status as a preliminary issue. The Claimant's whistleblowing and unfair dismissal claims were dismissed upon withdrawal, and the Tribunal found that he was not an employee of either respondent under the Employment Rights Act 1996 or at common law.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was a worker of the First Respondent for Equality Act 2010, Employment Rights Act 1996 and Working Time Regulations 1998 purposes. It also found that the Second Respondent did not engage the Claimant in any personal capacity.
The notice pay/breach of contract claim was struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction without common law employee status. The race discrimination, unlawful deductions and annual leave claims were permitted to continue to trial, with their merits not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The reserved judgment states that the whistleblowing claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The reserved judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Tribunal found that the Claimant was not an employee at common law and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the notice pay/breach of contract claim; that claim was struck out under rule 38. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The preliminary judgment found that the Claimant fell within the Equality Act 2010 extended definition of employee as a worker of the First Respondent, so the race discrimination claim could continue to trial. The merits were not decided in this judgment. | Other | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The preliminary judgment found that the Claimant was a worker of the First Respondent for Employment Rights Act 1996 purposes, so the unlawful deductions claim could continue to trial. The merits were not decided in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The preliminary judgment found that the Claimant was a worker of the First Respondent for Working Time Regulations 1998 purposes, so the annual leave claim could continue to trial. The merits were not decided in this judgment. |
Legal tests applied
22 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.83 Equality Act 2010
- Regulation 2 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Clyde & Co v Bates Van Winkelhof
- Cotswold Developments Construction Limited v Williams
- Autoclenz v Belcher
- Consistent Group Limited v Kalwak
- Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Limited v Buckborough and Sewell
- Protectacoat Firthglow Limited v Szilagyi
- Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd
- Johnson Underwood Ltd v Montgomery
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Pimlico Plumbers Limited v Smith
- Express and Echo Publications Limited v Tanton
- Macfarlane
- Clark
- Carmichael
- McMeechan
- PGMOL
- Humberstone
- White
- rule 38
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.