Case 6015682/2024 · Employment Tribunal
R. McCarthy v Artemis Interior Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015682/2024
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
R. McCarthy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 5 November 2025, Employment Judge Leonard-Johnston dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal found that R. McCarthy was not an employee for the purposes of section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 during the period from 17 January 2022 to 6 March 2023.
Because the claimant was not an employee for that period, the tribunal held that he did not have the two years' continuous service required by section 108 ERA 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230 ERA 1996 for the period between 17 January 2022 and 6 March 2023, and therefore did not have two years' continuous service under section 108 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.