Mr John Langdon v Secretary of State for Business & Trade and 1 other — 2023

The claimant had been a director and 45% shareholder of the Second Respondent, and later its sole director, while also working in the business from 1991 until redundancy on 17 June 2022. The First Respondent rejected his application to the Redundancy Payment Service on the basis that he was not an employee, so the main issue was whether he worked under a contract of employment as well as holding office and shares.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about his working pattern, duties, PAYE pay, holiday arrangements, and accountability within the company. Applying the contract of employment criteria, it found an implied contract existed, that he provided work personally, that there was mutuality of obligation, and that the company had a sufficient degree of control. The tribunal did not treat the absence of a written contract, the claimant's shareholding, or his low salary as determinative against employee status.

The tribunal held that the claimant was an employee for the purposes of s230 ERA and that the First Respondent should pay redundancy pay, holiday pay, and notice pay from the National Insurance Fund. It also held that the amended claim against the Second Respondent was brought out of time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that claim.