Case 2301255/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Desmond Wilmott v Secretary of State for Business & Trade — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301255/2024
- Decision date
- 14 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Desmond Wilmott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was the sole director and 99.8% shareholder of JJADS W Limited, which entered creditors' voluntary liquidation on 13 October 2022. He claimed payments from the Insolvency Service on the basis that he had been an employee of the company. The Insolvency Service rejected the claim on 8 February 2023, and the claimant presented tribunal claims on 20 November 2023 for redundancy payment, unpaid holiday pay, arrears of pay and notice pay.
The tribunal dismissed the holiday pay, arrears of pay and notice pay claims for want of jurisdiction. It accepted that the claimant had been confused and had corresponded with the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but found that the 8 February 2023 letter clearly identified the Employment Tribunal as the correct forum and that it was reasonably practicable for him to present the claims within three months. The tribunal also found that, even if it had not been reasonably practicable, the further delay after he was told on 2 October 2023 to use the Employment Tribunal was not reasonable.
On the redundancy payment claim, the tribunal considered whether the claimant was an employee of the company. Although there was a written employment contract, payslips and P60 documentation, the tribunal found that the claimant's work did not materially change after the contract was signed, that he retained control over his work and pay, and that the franchise performance meetings related to the company's franchise obligations rather than control by the company as employer. It concluded that the claimant was not an employee within s.230(1) and (2) ERA 1996, so the redundancy payment claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim for a redundancy payment under s.166 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within s.230(1) and (2) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The unpaid holiday pay claim under s.182 ERA 1996 was dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the three-month period under s.188(2), and in any event it was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The arrears of pay claim under s.182 ERA 1996 was dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction on time-limit grounds. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim under s.182 ERA 1996 was dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction on time-limit grounds. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.188(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230(1) and (2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Secretary of State for BERR v Neufeld & Howe [2009] EWCA Civ 280
- Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41
- Ready Mix Concrete v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497
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.