Case 1300275/2024 · Employment Tribunal
MR RICHARD DANCE v Bloxwich Golf Club — 2025
- Case reference
- 1300275/2024
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N. Clarke Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR RICHARD DANCE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Birmingham by CVP on 3 April 2025, Employment Judge N. Clarke considered the claim brought by Mr Richard Dance against Bloxwich Golf Club (1988) Ltd. The judgment records a single dispositive finding: the Claimant was not a worker or employee of the Respondent under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Because that status finding failed, the tribunal said the Claimant's claims were unfounded and dismissed them. The judgment does not allocate separate factual findings or remedies to individual heads of claim, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the claim generally after finding that the Claimant was not a worker or employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It does not set out a separate finding for this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the claim generally after finding that the Claimant was not a worker or employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It does not set out a separate finding for this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment dismisses the claim generally after finding that the Claimant was not a worker or employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It does not set out a separate finding for this head of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230 ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.