Case 1306044/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. McMillan - Counsel For the v Leek United Building Society — 2022
- Case reference
- 1306044/2020
- Decision date
- 13 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. McMillan - Counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims because it found that Mr M. Bell was not an employee within the meaning of s.230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On the same basis, it also dismissed the claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment. The judgment records that oral reasons were given, but it does not set out any monetary remedy because the claims failed on status.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not a worker within the meaning of Reg. 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 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.