Claimant v Artemis Interior Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230 ERA 1996 during the period 17 January 2022 to 6 March 2023. Without employee status, the claimant could not accrue the two years continuous service required under section 108 ERA to bring an unfair dismissal claim, resulting in dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Facts
The claimant worked for the respondent, an interior services company, from 17 January 2022 to 6 March 2023, a period of approximately 13 months. The claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim following termination on 6 March 2023. This was a preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant had the requisite employment status and length of service to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction. The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee under section 230 ERA 1996 during the relevant period and therefore could not meet the two years continuous service requirement under section 108 ERA necessary to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
Practical note
Self-employed or worker status, as opposed to employee status, will prevent an individual from bringing an unfair dismissal claim regardless of length of service, as employee status is a jurisdictional prerequisite.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6015682/2024
- Decision date
- 5 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No