Claimant v Dionard Guest House Limited

The tribunal determined it had no jurisdiction to hear the discrimination complaints because the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker under the statutory definitions in s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010 and s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996. The relationship was a voluntary, informal arrangement between friends with no mutuality of obligation, no control, and no payment of wages. Without the required employment status, the claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker, and therefore lacked the necessary employment status to bring a whistleblowing claim. The tribunal held there was no contract of employment, no mutuality of obligation, and no intention to create legal obligations between the parties. The claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The tribunal found there was no contract of employment between the parties. The claimant worked on a voluntary basis, was not paid wages, and the arrangement was an informal friendship arrangement rather than a legal contract. The notice pay claim therefore failed for want of jurisdiction.

The tribunal determined the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker under s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996, and therefore had no entitlement to holiday pay. The claimant worked voluntarily, received no wages, and there was no mutuality of obligation. The claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The tribunal found the claimant was not a worker under s.230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996. He volunteered to work without any obligation to do so, was not paid wages, and the arrangement was mutually beneficial between friends rather than contractual. Without worker status, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider unpaid wages claims.