Case 6028211/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. N. Webster v Secretary of State for Business & Trade — 2026
- Case reference
- 6028211/2025
- Decision date
- 30 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mrs. S. Laurance-Doig, Mr. A. Hayes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. N. Webster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs N. Webster was not an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written judgment records that oral summary reasons were given at the hearing but gives no further findings about employment status.
On that basis, all claims failed and were dismissed. The judgment does not identify each claim separately or record any monetary award; the supplied gov.uk listing categorises the case as breach of contract, redundancy, unlawful deduction from wages and Working Time Regulations.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses all claims without identifying them separately; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment dismisses all claims without identifying them separately; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses all claims without identifying them separately; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses all claims without identifying them separately; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employee status under s.230 ERA 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.