Case 1307914/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Chance-Hill Respondent 1: B & S Midlands Limited (in voluntary liquidation) Respondent 2: Secretary of State for Business and Trade Heard: Midlands West (by Cloud Video Platform) v Mr Soni, lay representative — 2024
- Case reference
- 1307914/2023
- Decision date
- 1 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Power
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Chance-Hill Respondent 1: B & S Midlands Limited (in voluntary liquidation) Respondent 2: Secretary of State for Business and Trade Heard: Midlands West (by Cloud Video Platform)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing heard by Cloud Video Platform at Midlands West on 1 August 2024, Employment Judge Power sat alone. The claimant was represented by Mr Coombes, solicitor, and the respondent by Mr Soni, lay representative.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not at the relevant time have the status of employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the claimant's claims failed and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The short judgment states that the claimant's claims failed and were dismissed because he did not have employee status at the relevant time. The specific claim type is taken from the listing category because the judgment text does not separately set out each claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The short judgment states that the claimant's claims failed and were dismissed because he did not have employee status at the relevant time. The specific claim type is taken from the listing category because the judgment text does not separately set out each claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The short judgment states that the claimant's claims failed and were dismissed because he did not have employee status at the relevant time. The specific claim type is taken from the listing category because the judgment text does not separately set out each claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The listing includes rights on insolvency. The short judgment does not identify a more specific locked taxonomy category for that claim, and states only that the claims failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 of the 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.