Case 1805159/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Platt v Future Cleaning Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805159/2020
- Decision date
- 23 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Platt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment on a preliminary issue only. The tribunal had to decide whether Mr Platt was an employee for the purposes of s.108 ERA 1996 during the period 5 May 2015 to 18 November 2018. Evidence was heard from Mr Chisholm for the respondent, and from the claimant and Ms Dickinson. The judge found Ms Dickinson was not a reliable witness, while Mr Chisholm and the claimant were attempting to give honest evidence to the best of their recollection.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue on employee status for the purposes of s.108 ERA 1996. The tribunal held that the claimant was an employee within s.230 ERA 1996 during the period 5 May 2015 to 18 November 2018. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.230 ERA 1996
- Uber BV and others v Aslam and others
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Another
- Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner and Anor
- Carmichael and Anor v National Power Plc
- Wilson v Circular Distributions Ltd
- Young & Woods v West
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.