Case 1404166/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr P Soni of the Redundancy Payments Service — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404166/2023
- Decision date
- 19 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to determine the claimant's employment status. The claimant, a 50% shareholder and director of J&B Disaster Management Limited (in administration), applied to the Redundancy Payments Service for redundancy pay, notice pay and holiday pay from the National Insurance Fund under sections 166 and 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Secretary of State refused on the basis that the claimant was not an employee of the insolvent first respondent.
Applying section 230 ERA 1996 and the authorities including Neufeld, Eaton, Autoclenz and Ready Mixed Concrete, the judge found no written contract of employment, no board minute or written memorandum constituting an agreement to employ the claimant. The claimant's accounts of the contractual arrangement were inconsistent (initially a "verbal agreement", later an unprinted online contract), and the figures he gave for his wage were inconsistent with his originating application and his P60. Payments treated as salary were below the National Minimum Wage, which the tribunal accepted did not reflect the wage to which a bona fide employee would be entitled.
Applying the Autoclenz four-stage test, the tribunal found the claimant had not discharged the burden of proving a contract of employment; there was no irreducible minimum of mutuality of obligation, no requirement of personal service and insufficient control, given that he was a 50% shareholder in what was effectively a quasi-partnership and could not be obliged to act without his own consent. The tribunal therefore held the claimant was not an employee of the first respondent and dismissed his claims against the second respondent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim against the Secretary of State under s.166 ERA 1996 for redundancy pay from the National Insurance Fund following the first respondent's administration. Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim against the Secretary of State under s.182 ERA 1996. Dismissed on the same basis: claimant not found to be an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim against the Secretary of State under s.182 ERA 1996. Dismissed on the same basis: claimant not found to be an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss.166 and 182 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Secretary of State v Neufeld and Howe [2009] EWCA Civ 280
- Secretary of State v Knight [2023] UKEAT/0073/13/RN
- Eaton v Robert Eaton Ltd & Secretary of State [1988] IRLR 83 EAT
- Fleming v Secretary of State [1997] IRLR 682 CS
- Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Ltd UKEAT/0126/20/BA
- Rajah v Secretary of State [1995] EAT/125
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2017] EWCA Civ 51
- Aslam, Farrar & Others v Uber BV 2202550/2015
- Addison Lee Ltd v Lange UKEAT/0037/18/BA
- Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] ICR 612
- Express and Echo Publications Ltd v Tanton [1999] IRLR 367
- James v Greenwich London Borough Council
- Tilson v Alstom Transport
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.