Case 1803659/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Welch (counsel) For the v Mr G Hall (director) Technology: This hearing was conducted by CVP (V - video). The parties did not object. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all the issues could be dealt with by CVP. — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803659/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr A Severns was not an employee or worker of DBG Contractors Limited within s 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 or reg 2 Working Time Regulations 1998. On that basis, the tribunal held that he could not pursue a complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages and could not pursue a complaint for failure to pay accrued holiday under the Working Time Regulations.
Both claims were dismissed for lack of employee or worker status. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the claimant was not an employee or worker of the respondent within s 230 Employment Rights Act 1996, so he could not bring this complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held the claimant was not a worker within reg 2 Working Time Regulations 1998, so he could not bring the claim for failure to pay accrued holiday. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.