Claimant v The members of The 77 Club
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondents. As unfair dismissal claims require employee status, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider this complaint and it was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondents. As wrongful dismissal claims require employee status, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider this complaint and it was dismissed.
The claimant argued that if she was a worker she should have been paid during her suspension. The tribunal found this claim was not well-founded and dismissed it.
By consent of both parties, the tribunal awarded the claimant unpaid holiday pay of £1,831.25.
Facts
Ms Gould brought claims against The 77 Club members alleging unfair and wrongful dismissal, unpaid wages during suspension, and holiday pay. The key issue was her employment status. She was represented by her brother, while the respondents were represented by a litigation consultant. The hearing took place over two days in a hybrid format at London South tribunal.
Decision
The tribunal found that Ms Gould was not an employee but potentially a worker. This meant her unfair and wrongful dismissal claims had no jurisdiction and were dismissed. Her claim for pay during suspension failed on its merits. However, by consent, she was awarded £1,831.25 in unpaid holiday pay.
Practical note
Employment status is fundamental to tribunal jurisdiction: worker status allows holiday pay claims but not unfair dismissal claims, which require full employee status.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 2302092/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep