Case 1301269/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Dale R Holmes v Niyaa People Ltd and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 1301269/2022
Decision date: 4 August 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hena

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr Dale R Holmes

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed by respondent 1 at the relevant time, not respondent 2. It accepted that the earlier arrangement with respondent 2 had lapsed and that respondent 1 had approached the claimant directly for the Taylor Wimpey Homes assignment, while respondent 2 and respondent 1 operated separately for PAYE purposes.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found there had been no unlawful deduction of wages under s.23(1)(a) ERA 1996. It treated £22.50 plus VAT as the client-facing rate agreed between respondent 1 and Taylor Wimpey Homes, and found the claimant had been paid £18.50 per hour, which he knew before raising the complaint.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The tribunal held respondent 1 was the claimant's employer for the relevant period and should have given one week's written notice. It ordered respondent 1 to pay one week's notice pay of £1,065.60.	Upheld	—	£1,066
Breach of contract	The tribunal accepted the vehicle-expense issue could be argued as part of contractual loss, but found it was not a recoverable financial loss. It noted the claimant retained the vehicle and could continue to use or sell it.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £1,066; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.