Case 1601333/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Chauffeurs in Chester Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and The Secretary of State For Business Energy and Industrial Stategy — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601333/2022
- Decision date
- 31 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant bought a corporate chauffeur business in 2010, incorporated it as a limited company in January 2010, and became the sole shareholder and sole director in March 2016. The company entered creditors' voluntary liquidation on 18 May 2022. The claimant said he had become an employee, but there was no written contract of employment, no clear evidence of any oral contract, and no record separating any duties said to be employment from his duties as director.
The tribunal applied the employment-status authorities it cited, including Ready Mixed Concrete, Clark, and Neufeld. It accepted that the claimant had been paid through PAYE from April 2018, but found that this was the only factor pointing towards employee status. Against that, the tribunal noted that the claimant could not say when he became an employee, that he took holiday as and when he wished, that no holiday record was kept, and that the PAYE payments were modest and below the level at which tax or national insurance would arise. On balance, the tribunal found those payments were more likely a tax-efficient method of remunerating him as a director than evidence of a genuine contract of employment.
The tribunal therefore held that there was insufficient evidence that the claimant had entered into a contract of employment, and in any event was not an employee of the first respondent at the date of insolvency. It dismissed the claims against the first respondent for redundancy pay, notice pay, unpaid wages, and unpaid holiday pay. It added that the holiday pay claim would also have failed on the facts because there was no evidence that any holiday remained untaken or unpaid.
Because the claimant was not an employee at the date of insolvency, the tribunal held that no liability attached to the Secretary of State under s166/182 ERA 1996 for National Insurance Fund payments. That claim was also dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim against the first respondent for a statutory redundancy payment. Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within s230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim against the first respondent for notice pay. Dismissed because the tribunal found no contract of employment and therefore no employment tribunal jurisdiction for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against the first respondent for unpaid wages. Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee and therefore the claim fell outside jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim against the first respondent for unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal said that even if the claimant were a worker there was no evidence of any untaken or unpaid holiday, so the claim would have failed in any event. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim against the Secretary of State for payments under s166/182 ERA 1996 from the National Insurance Fund. Dismissed because the claimant was not an employee at the date of insolvency. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Ready Mixed Concrete (Southeast) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd
- Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Neufeld and anor
- s230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s166/182 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.