Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform

Case Summary

The claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay and unlawful deduction from wages against the respondent, a Switzerland-based not-for-profit organisation. The tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdictional issues and employment status. The tribunal found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent and therefore dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not have the status of an employee or worker under the relevant statutory definitions, which was a prerequisite for the tribunal to have jurisdiction to hear his claims under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •International jurisdiction
• •Territorial jurisdiction
• •Employment status - whether claimant was an employee
• •Employment status - whether claimant was a worker

& 2309689/2025 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Joseph Prater Rushton Respondent: Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform Heard at: London South, by CVP On: 30 March 2026 Before: EJ Rice-Birchall Representation Claimant: Mr Allsop, counsel Respondent: Ms Balmer, counsel JUDGMENT The claimant was not an employee or a worker of the respondent at the relevant time. The claim is dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine it. REASONS Background 1. The claimant filed his claim on 26 June 2025. A second claim was subsequently filed. The claims were formally consolidated by the Tribunal. 2. The claimant is attempting to bring claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay and unlawful deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and/or at common law in the employment tribunals. All of those claims require him to have been either an employee or a worker of the respondent. There are also international and territorial jurisdictional issues as the respondent is based in Switzerland. This hearing was listed to consider the jurisdictional arguments. Evidence 3. The Tribunal had before it a core Preliminary Hearing bundle totalling 247 pages and a supplementary bundle comprising a further 333 pages which included the pleadings and both parties’ witness evidence. The claimant had prepared a chronology of events (not agreed). The claimant prepared a witness statement and gave oral evidence. For the respondent, Mr Dionys Forster, Director General, prepared a witness statement and gave oral evidence. There were skeleton arguments from both parties. As there was no time for oral submissions within the hearing, both parties sent in written submissions for consideration. 4. Mr Forster had been involved only from April 2022. Therefore his evidence on anything from prior to that date was not based on first-hand knowledge. The…