Employee Status Determination: Employment Tribunal Ruling
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal decided that the claimant was an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The case also included a second respondent, and the claimant's deadline for filing the claim was extended.
⚖️ Legal holding
An individual is considered an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996 if they meet the statutory definition.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant was deemed an employee, and the case against a second respondent was allowed to proceed.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal ruled that the claimant was an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The case against a second respondent was allowed to proceed, and the claimant's time to present the claim was extended.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Case No: 6002588/2024 Page 1 of 2
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant:
[redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
On: 16 January 2025
Before: Employment Judge Ahmed (sitting alone)
At: [NAME_5] Claimant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
JUDGMENT AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING
The decision of the Tribunal is that:
1. The Claimant was an ‘employee’ within the meaning of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996;
2. The issue of whether the Claimant was an employee of [COMPANY_2] or [COMPANY_4] shall be determined in due course either at a preliminary hearing or at the full merits hearing; 3. [COMPANY_4] are hereby joined as a Second Respondent to the proceedings;
4. The Claim Form and a blank ET3 (Response) form shall be served on [COMPANY_4] at its registered office of 16, North Mills, Frog Island, Leicester, LE3 5 DL.
5. The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal was presented out of time but it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. The Claimant’s time for presenting the claim is extended to 19 May 2024 to allow the claim to proceed;
6. The Respondent’s application for a preparation time order is dismissed.
Case No: 6002588/2024 Page 2 of 2
_____________________________
Employment Judge Ahmed
Date: 16 January 2025
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
.......27 January 2025.................................
...................................................................
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.
Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.
Recording and Transcription Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice- directions/
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant was deemed an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the case against a second respondent was allowed to proceed.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant was an employee and whether a second respondent should be involved in the proceedings.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant was an employee based on the statutory definition provided in the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Employment Rights Act 1996, specifically section 230(1), was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was the claimant's status as an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, confirming their status as an employee and allowing the case to proceed against a second respondent.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, this means that if they meet the statutory definition of an employee under the Employment Rights Act 1996, they can pursue claims against multiple respondents.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the evidence or documents that mattered.