Case 1802290/2020 · Employment Tribunal
1 Mr N Pearson 2. Mr L Smith v Ultra Group 2019 Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802290/2020
- Decision date
- 25 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms L Fawcett, Mr L Priestley
Parties
3 namedClaimant
1 Mr N Pearson 2. Mr L Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was conducted remotely on 24 and 25 May 2021 before Employment Judge D N Jones, sitting with lay members Ms L Fawcett and Mr L Priestley. The judgment records that the claimants were workers of the first respondent within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The supplied text records only that finding. It does not set out any substantive liability determination on the underlying claims, nor does it record any remedy, compensation, or dismissal of claims. The case reference shown in the judgment includes both 1802290/2020 and 18802291/2020, but the extracted text contains a single collective finding on worker status.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found that both claimants were workers of the first respondent within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996. The supplied text does not record any substantive liability findings or any monetary award. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230(3)(b) ERA 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.