Case 2219252/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Wheeler v Swimming Nature Holdings Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2219252/2023
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Wheeler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Davidson. Two issues were determined: the claimant's application to strike out the response (or alternatively for a deposit order), and the claimant's employment status for the purpose of a holiday pay claim of approximately £560. The strike out and deposit order applications were refused on the basis that no disclosure order had been made, contested matters were for the final hearing, and it would be premature to assess the strength of the response without hearing evidence.
On employment status, the tribunal found the claimant was an independent contractor rather than an employee or worker. The claimant had been offered a choice between employment at £20 per hour with benefits including holiday and sick pay, or self-employment at £25 per hour without such benefits, and chose self-employed status knowing he would not receive holiday pay. He signed a Self-Employed Contractor Agreement on 8 September 2023, invoiced monthly under the name 'A-Class Swimming', had a limited right of substitution, and was able to work elsewhere subject to consent.
The tribunal applied the test of looking at the reality of the relationship and the central factors of personal service, control and mutuality of obligation. It found the parties had a genuine intention to enter into a contractor relationship without inequality of bargaining power, and that the manner in which the parties conducted the relationship was consistent with self-employed engagement. Performance scrutiny and a goodwill payment in lieu of the following week's cancelled sessions did not change that status. The holiday pay claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found the claimant was a self-employed independent contractor and therefore not entitled to holiday pay. Amount in issue was understood to be £560.00. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response under Rule 38(1), or alternatively for a deposit order under Rule 40(1), was refused. This was a procedural application rather than a substantive claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 38(1)
- Rule 40(1)
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.