Case 1304574/2018 · Employment Tribunal

in person For the v Mr G Oretel, Direct of Respondent — 2019

Case reference: 1304574/2018
Decision date: 6 March 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Richardson Signed

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Mr G Oretel, Direct of Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal found that the claimant's employment status claim under s230(1) and (2) ERA 1996 was not well founded. It rejected the respondent's case that the claimant was self-employed, but it also rejected the claimant's case that he had been taken on as a permanent employee on 15 May 2018. On the evidence, the tribunal held that he was a worker under s230(3)(b), not an employee.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The tribunal rejected the claimant's employment status case under s230(1) and (2) ERA 1996 and held that he was a worker under s230(3)(b), not an employee.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The claim for arrears of pay succeeded. The tribunal found the claimant worked 176.50 hours at £10 per hour and did not accept his case that the agreed rate was £12.50 per hour.	Upheld	—	—
Holiday pay	The claim for holiday pay succeeded on a pro-rated basis. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 21 hours 19 minutes of holiday pay.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The claim for notice pay failed because, as a worker rather than an employee, the claimant was not entitled to notice pay.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £1,978; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

4 references

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.

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.