Case 2214869/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Caicedo Zambrano v Greenbay Supermarket Limited (In Liquidation) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214869/2023
- Decision date
- 30 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Caicedo Zambrano
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 29 January 2024 by CVP before Employment Judge Bradford. The claimant appeared in person, the first respondent did not attend or take part, and the second respondent was represented by Ms S Ware, lay representative. The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and no written reasons were provided beyond the formal decision.
The tribunal decided that, at the time Greenbay Supermarket Limited went into creditors' voluntary liquidation on 15 June 2023, Mr Caicedo Zambrano was not an employee of the first respondent within the meaning of s230 Employment Rights Act 1996. That finding determined the case.
Because the claimant was not an employee, the tribunal held that he did not qualify for payments from the National Insurance Fund under s182 to s186 Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found that, as at 15 June 2023 when the first respondent entered creditors' voluntary liquidation, the claimant was not an employee within s230 Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, he did not qualify for payments from the National Insurance Fund under s182 to s186 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s182-s186 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.