1. White Rose Academies Trust 2. Luminate Education Group

Case Summary

The claimant brought multiple claims against two respondents, including detrimental treatment on the grounds of protected disclosures, unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosures and unlawful deduction from wages. The employment tribunal determined that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the second respondent, and dismissed all of his complaints against it.

The tribunal determined that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the second respondent, which meant the claims against that respondent lacked the necessary employment status jurisdiction to proceed.

• •whether the claimant was an employee or worker of the second respondent

Judgment approved by the court for handing down Whitaker v WRAT and LEG © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 43 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 43 Case No: EA-2025-001261-NK EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 20 March 2026 Before: HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: MR A WHITAKER Appellant - and – WHITE ROSE ACADEMIES TRUST (1) LUMINATE EDUCATION GROUP (2) Respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Emma Darlow Stearn (instructed by James and West Law LLP) for the Appellant Daniel Piddington (instructed by Browne Jacobson LLP) attended for the First Respondent Andrew Sugarman (instructed by Eversheds Sutherland LLP) for the Second Respondent Hearing date: 27 January 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down Whitaker v WRAT and LEG © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 43 SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE The claimant in the employment tribunal brought multiple complaints against two respondents, including detrimental treatment on the grounds of protected disclosures, unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosures and unlawful deduction from wages. At a preliminary hearing the employment tribunal determined that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the second respondent within the meaning of section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996, and dismissed all of his complaints against it. The tr…