Surrey Partnership Care Ltd and Ms D E Mutsi

Case Summary

This is a strike-out/jurisdiction decision determining the claimant's employment status and which claims can proceed against which respondent. The tribunal determined the claimant was an employee and worker, allowing race discrimination, holiday pay, unlawful deductions, and breach of contract claims to proceed against the first respondent (employer), but dismissing the latter three claims against the second respondent (an individual).

The tribunal found the claimant satisfied the statutory definitions of employee under ERA 1996 and Equality Act 2010, and worker status. Accordingly, race discrimination claims could proceed against both respondents, while contract-based claims (holiday pay, unlawful deductions, breach of contract) could only proceed against the employer (first respondent) and were dismissed against the individual second respondent who lacked the requisite legal status.

• •Employment status of claimant
• •Worker status under ERA 1996
• •Employee status under Equality Act 2010
• •Race discrimination claims
• •Holiday pay claims
• •Unlawful deductions of wages
• •Breach of contract claims
• •Jurisdiction against second respondent

Case No. 2304181/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms Mollel Respondent: (1) Surrey Partnership Care Ltd (2) Ms Deborah Esther Mutsi Heard at: London South (by CVP) On: 24 April 2026 Before: Employment Judge Hart Representation: For the claimant: Mr Mayanja (legal executive) For the first respondent: Did not attend For the second respondent: Did not attend JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Tribunal is that: 1. The Claimant was an employee of the first respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 2. The Claimant was an employee of the first respondent within the meaning of section 83 of the Equality Act 2010. 3. The Claimant a worker of the first respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Case No. 2304181/2024 2 4. The claims for race discrimination, holiday pay, unlawful deductions of wages and breach of contract to proceed against the first respondent. 5. The claims for race discrimination to proceed against the second respondent. 6. The claims for holiday pay, unlawful deductions of wages and breach of contract against the second respondent are dismissed. This judgment has been approved by: Employment Judge HART Date: 24 April 2026 Note Summary reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request for either summary reasons or full reasons was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If the claimant requests written summary reasons then the Tribunal may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, provide written full reasons. Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and written full reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov…