Claimant v AC
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out because the claims have no reasonable prospect of success and are an abuse of process due to res judicata estoppel arising from the Financial Remedies Order dated 23 October 2023. In the alternative, the claimant was self-employed and not a worker or employee under ERA 1996 or EqA 2010.
Struck out because the claims have no reasonable prospect of success and are an abuse of process due to res judicata estoppel arising from the Financial Remedies Order dated 23 October 2023. In the alternative, the claimant was self-employed and not a worker or employee under ERA 1996 or EqA 2010.
Struck out because the claims have no reasonable prospect of success and are an abuse of process due to res judicata estoppel arising from the Financial Remedies Order dated 23 October 2023. In the alternative, the claimant was self-employed and not a worker or employee under ERA 1996 or EqA 2010.
Struck out because the claims have no reasonable prospect of success and are an abuse of process due to res judicata estoppel arising from the Financial Remedies Order dated 23 October 2023. In the alternative, the claimant was self-employed and not a worker or employee under ERA 1996 or EqA 2010.
Claim for £39,199 between February 2022 and April 2024 struck out because the claims have no reasonable prospect of success and are an abuse of process due to res judicata estoppel arising from the Financial Remedies Order dated 23 October 2023. In the alternative, the claimant was self-employed and not a worker or employee under ERA 1996.
Facts
The claimant, a dentist, co-owned a dental practice with her ex-husband (first respondent) holding a 50% shareholding. They separated in 2020 and divorced in 2022. On 23 October 2023 a Financial Remedies Order was made by the Family Court requiring the claimant to transfer her shares and resign from employment by 30 April 2024. The FRO contained a clause settling all claims between the parties. The claimant worked as a dentist receiving 50% of fees she collected until she left on 29 April 2024. She brought claims for religious and marital discrimination, disability discrimination, and unlawful deduction of wages in August 2024.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims on two grounds: first, the Financial Remedies Order created a res judicata estoppel preventing the claims as an abuse of process. Second, even if the FRO did not bar the claims, the claimant was self-employed throughout and not a worker or employee under ERA 1996 or EqA 2010, being in business on her own account as a 50% shareholder co-owner until October 2023, and thereafter continuing to provide dental services as a client/customer relationship with the practice.
Practical note
A Financial Remedies Order from the Family Court containing a full and final settlement clause can create a res judicata estoppel preventing subsequent employment tribunal claims, even where there is no formal settlement agreement under ERA or EqA provisions.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6007872/2024
- Decision date
- 17 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- AC
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Dentist
- Service
- 19 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No