Case 1405103/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr P Soni, lay representative — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405103/2023
- Decision date
- 20 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Rayner held that Mr G Manson was not an employee of the respondent company within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 at the relevant time. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed his claim for a redundancy payment.
The tribunal reached the same conclusion in relation to the holiday pay claim. The judgment records only that the claimant did not have employee status for the relevant period, and no separate monetary award was made. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant was found not to be an employee of the respondent company within the meaning of section 230 ERA 1996 at the relevant time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed for the same reason: the claimant was found not to be an employee of the respondent company within the meaning of section 230 ERA 1996 at the relevant time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.