Case 1400316/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Lindsay v The House of Shutters Limited (In Creditors voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400316/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D Lindsay
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by video at Southampton on 1 October 2024 before Employment Judge Gray. The claimant appeared in person. The first respondent did not attend and was not represented. The second respondent was represented by Mr Soni, a lay representative.
The tribunal held that Mr D Lindsay had not proved on the balance of probability that he was an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal said his claim failed and was dismissed.
The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment. The record is therefore limited to the employment-status finding and the dismissal of the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states only that the claimant had not proven on the balance of probability that he was an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so his claim failed and was dismissed. It does not separately identify or analyse individual heads of claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- balance of probability
- 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.