Case 1800202/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Downes v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Redundancy Payment Service — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800202/2023
- Decision date
- 24 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jaleel Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Downes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Jaleel, sitting at Leeds on 13 April 2023, held that Mr M Downes was not an employee of the respondent within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That finding was determinative of the claims before the tribunal.
Because the claimant was not found to be an employee, the tribunal dismissed the claims for redundancy pay, compensatory notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of wages. The judgment does not record any separate monetary award, liability findings, or remedy calculations.
The only legal point expressly identified in the judgment text is the employee-status issue under section 230 ERA 1996, which led to dismissal of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant was not an employee within section 230 ERA 1996, so the redundancy pay claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded in the judgment as a claim for compensatory notice pay; dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the respondent within section 230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment expressly dismisses the holiday pay claim on the basis that the claimant was not an employee within section 230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to arrears of wages and dismisses that claim because the claimant was not an employee within section 230 ERA 1996. | 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.