Case 2301436/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Cronin (1) Miss C Brewer (2) v Secretary of State for Business & Trade and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301436/2023
- Decision date
- 14 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macey Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr P Cronin (1) Miss C Brewer (2)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants brought complaints for unauthorised deductions from wages, accrued but untaken holiday pay, notice pay and statutory redundancy payments against the Secretary of State and the company in liquidation. The tribunal found that the wage, holiday pay and notice pay claims against the company were presented outside the relevant three-month time limits and that it had not been shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present them in time.
For the claims against the Secretary of State, the tribunal considered whether the claimants were employees of the company at the date of insolvency. It found factors pointing both towards and against employee status, including written employment contracts and integration into the business, but also the later move to no minimum hours, the absence of paid holiday, salary being credited to directors' loan accounts, and the fact that the claimants were in reality answerable to themselves as the board.
Applying the authorities on employment status, the tribunal concluded that the balance was against the claimants being employees. It also found that, for the statutory redundancy payment claims against the company, their relationship had been closer to employment before March 2020 but that after April 2020 their conduct was inconsistent with the employment contracts and the contracts had been discharged. All claims were therefore dismissed or found not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaints against the second respondent were dismissed for want of jurisdiction because they were out of time. The complaints against the first respondent were not well-founded because the claimants were found not to be employees for the purposes of the claims against the first respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay complaints against the second respondent were dismissed for want of jurisdiction because they were out of time. The notice pay complaints against the first respondent were not well-founded because the claimants were found not to be employees for the purposes of the claims against the first respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The accrued but untaken holiday pay complaints against the second respondent were dismissed for want of jurisdiction because they were out of time. The holiday pay complaints against the first respondent were not well-founded because the claimants were found not to be employees for the purposes of the claims against the first respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The statutory redundancy payment complaints against both respondents were not well-founded. The tribunal found that the claimants were not employees for the purposes of these complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Article 7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Rajah v Secretary of State
- Autoclenz test
- Ready Mixed Concrete test
- Bottrill factors
- Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives
- Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Neufeld
- organisation test
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.