Claimant v Secretary of State for Justice

Claimant was a judicial office-holder, not a 'worker' under the WTR or ERA. Supreme Court precedent in Gilham establishes that judges and judicial office-holders do not work under a contract and therefore are not workers. This applies equally to non-legal tribunal members. Claimant also failed to comply with notice requirements under Regulation 15 WTR.

Claimant is not a 'worker' for purposes of s.230 ERA 1996. As a judicial office-holder appointed under statute, she does not have a contract of employment or a contract to perform work or services personally. Supreme Court in Gilham determined that judicial office-holders are remunerated by virtue of their office, not for services performed.

Claimant's Human Rights Act complaint under Article 14 (read with Article 8 and A1P1) failed. Tribunal found her complaint did not fall within the ambit of Article 8 (no evidence of very serious consequences affecting private life to a very significant degree) or A1P1 (no existing possession or enforceable right being deprived). Interpreting 'worker' to include judicial office-holders would require the tribunal to redraw the line Parliament adopted, which exceeds tribunal jurisdiction.