Case 6019595/2024 · Employment Tribunal
S Yesufu v 1- Peabody Housing Trust 2- Zurich Insurance plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019595/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Yesufu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 5 February 2025, the tribunal asked the claimant to clarify whether Peabody Housing Trust was her employer and whether the employment dates in the ET1 were correct. In its response dated 5 March 2025, the first respondent said it had never employed the claimant, suggested the ET1 pointed to a landlord-tenant relationship rather than employment, and submitted that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over claims for unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, arrears of pay, other payments, whistleblowing and discrimination if the claimant could not show employee or worker status.
The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's letter. The tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of any individual allegation and did not award a remedy. It was approved by Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto on 1 July 2025 and sent to the parties on 22 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
11 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Expressly referred to in the respondent's jurisdiction challenge; the tribunal struck out the claim without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Expressly referred to in the respondent's jurisdiction challenge; the tribunal struck out the claim without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to 'arrears of pay' and 'other payments'; this claim type is taken from the case listing/context. The tribunal struck out the claim without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | This claim type is taken from the case listing/context; the judgment refers more generally to 'other payments' and does not separately analyse breach of contract. The tribunal struck out the claim without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Expressly referred to in the respondent's jurisdiction challenge as dismissal/detrimental treatment whistleblowing claims; the tribunal struck out the claim without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment refers generally to 'discrimination complaints'; the protected characteristic is taken from the case listing/context. The tribunal struck out the claim without determining the merits. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.