Ms L Crocombe v Equity Release Supermarket Ltd: 2404647/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 2024 |
| Date | 29 April 2024 |
| Citation | 2404647/2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 07 May 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case No: 2404647/2022
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Ms L Crocombe
Respondent: Equity Release Supermarket Ltd
Heard at: Manchester On: 26 March and 24 April and
25 April 2024 (in chambers)
Before: Employment Judge Slater
Representation
Claimant: Ms Brooke-Ward, counsel
Respondent: Ms S Firth, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claimant was a worker in relation to the respondent in accordance with the
definition in the Employment Rights Act 1996 from 28 January 2020 until 24
February 2022.
2. The claimant was an employee of the respondent in accordance with the
definition in the Equality Act 2010 from 28 January 2020 until 24 February 2022.
3. The claimant was not an employee of the respondent in accordance with the
definition in the Employment Rights Act 1996 at any time in the period from 28
January 2020 until 24 February 2022.
4. Since the claimant was not an employee in accordance with the definition in
the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to
consider her complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal/breach of
contract, so these complaints are dismissed.
5. The claimant’s remaining complaints of disability discrimination, sex
discrimination and victimization under the Equality Act 2010 and of
unauthorised deductions from wages and in relation to holiday pay will proceed
to a final hearing as listed on 3-7 June 2024.
Case No: 2404647/2022
2
REASONS
Issues
1. This was a public preliminary hearing to determine (1) whether the claimant was
an employee or worker within the meaning of section 230 Employment Rights Act
1996 (ERA) and/or (2) whether the claimant has the protection of the Equality Act
pursuant to section 83(2) Equality Act 2010.
2. This hearing was not listed to determine whether, if the claimant was not an
employee within the Equality Act sense, she could bring a claim under the contract
worker provisions in section 41 of the Equality Act 2010. It appears that this
possibility was not discussed at the case management preliminary hearing. I raised
this with the parties and the respondent considered over the adjournment, whether
they accepted that, if the claimant was not an employee, she was contract worker
and the respondent was the principal for the purposes of section 41 of the Equality
Act. At the resumed hearing, the respondent accepted that, if the claimant was not
an employee in the Equality Act sense, the respondent was a principal and she
was a contract worker for the purposes of a claim relying on s.41 EqA.
3. At the start of the hearing, Ms Firth sought to renew an application to postpone
the final hearing which had previously been refused. I did not consider there was
any material change of circumstances since the application had previously been
made, so informed the parties I could not consider this application.
Evidence
4. I had an electronic bundle of 499 pages. There were five witnesses: the claimant
and Sheri Firmin for the claimant and Lynsey Harrison, Mark Gregory and Graham
Evans for the respondent. There was also a witness statement from Lauren Weir
made in support of the claimant’s claim. Ms Weir did not attend to give evidence
and the respondent agreed that I could read the statement and give it such weight
as I considered appropriate. Ms Firmin and Ms Weir were engaged by the
respondent as financial advisers under the same type of arrangements as the
claimant. Ms Harrison has been the respondent’s Chief Operating Officer since
2020. Mr Gregory is the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent. Mr Evans is the
respondent’s Head of Compliance.
5. There was insufficient time in the listing of one day to hear all the evidence. I
heard the evidence for the claimant on 26 March and we reconvened on 24 April
2024 when I heard the evidence for the respondent and the parties’ submissions.
There was insufficient time to make and give judgment on 24 April 2024 so I made
my decision in chambers on 25 April 2024.
6. On the afternoon of 23 April 2024, i.e. the day before the hearing was due to
resume, the respondent made an application to put in a supplemental witness
statement for Graham Evans relating to regulatory matters. They also sent a
supplemental hearing bundle containing documents not already admitted in
evidence. The written application did not explicitly apply for these further
documents to be admitted in evidence. Ms Firth, at the resumed hearing, made an
application to admit the supplemental witness statement and the additional
To continue reading
Request your trial