Case 1601980/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J. Hughes v Venture Restaurants Ltd and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601980/2019
- Decision date
- 5 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr J. Hughes
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Hughes worked for Venture Restaurants Ltd (R1) as head chef at Bocca from about 1 November 2018 until 22 August 2019 under an oral and implied agreement for personal service. It accepted that he worked full-time, was paid weekly at £12 per hour, was supervised by Ms Wyatt, had no right to provide a substitute, and was treated as being subject to holiday, disciplinary and notice arrangements. On that basis he was a worker under R1, but not an employee, because the tribunal was not prepared to impose mutuality of obligation retrospectively where both parties said they did not understand the relationship in that way.
The tribunal rejected any employment or worker relationship with Venturehospitality Ltd (R2). Mr Hughes had some involvement in discussions about the proposed Tapestri venture, but he was never paid by R2, never contracted to work there as head chef, and had left R1 before Tapestri opened as a restaurant. It also found that there was no transfer of an undertaking from R1 to R2 under TUPE, because Bocca and Tapestri were materially different businesses and there was no economic entity retaining its identity.
Because worker status was established against R1, Mr Hughes was entitled to accrued holiday pay. The parties had agreed the amount subject to liability, and the tribunal recorded that the outstanding holiday pay to 22 August 2019 was £1,600. R1 was ordered to pay that sum.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that Mr Hughes was a worker engaged by R1 and therefore entitled to accrued holiday pay. The parties had agreed the quantum subject to liability, and the tribunal recorded the amount due as £1,600 to 22 August 2019. | Upheld | — | £1,600 |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found that there was no transfer of an undertaking, business or part of a business from R1 to R2. It held that Bocca and Tapestri were different businesses and that there was no economic entity retaining its identity. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,600
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Hall (Inspector of Taxes) v Lorimer
- mutuality of obligation
- s.230 ERA 1996
- reg 2(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- reg 2(1) TUPE 2006
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.