Case 1404011/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Frampton v Secretary of State for Business & Trade and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404011/2023
- Decision date
- 6 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Representation
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at Bristol by video on 22 February 2024 before Employment Judge Livesey. The Claimant appeared in person, the First Respondent was represented by Ms Whalley, and the Second Respondent did not attend.
The Tribunal dismissed the claims for a redundancy payment, unlawful deductions from wages, unpaid holiday, and breach of contract relating to notice. The stated reason was that the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment dismisses the redundancy payment claim because the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment dismisses the unlawful deductions from wages claim because the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to unpaid holiday and dismisses it because the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment dismisses the breach of contract claim relating to notice because the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.