Case 2301453/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Hannagan v DNXB Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301453/2020
- Decision date
- 3 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Hannagan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Hannagan and Mr Xiong set up DNXB Group Limited together in July 2016 as equal shareholders and directors. The tribunal found that, at the outset, there was no agreement on hours, holidays or salary, and that the claimant was acting with Mr Xiong to build the business rather than under a contract of employment. After the Shareholders’ Agreement was signed on 24 November 2017, the tribunal found there was a contract under which the claimant would be paid as managing director only if profit was made, but that the arrangement was still not a contract of employment. On the facts, the claimant supplied his own equipment, worked from home, took financial risk, and was not subject to meaningful day-to-day control.
The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal or breach of contract, so those claims were dismissed. It found that the disciplinary process begun in October 2019 and the dismissal letter of 13 November 2019 arose out of the wider dispute between the two founders, particularly over bank control and expenses, rather than a genuine misconduct dismissal. The tribunal accepted that the claimant remained a shareholder and director after dismissal, and rejected the argument that the respondent’s use of employee terminology in the disciplinary documents altered the underlying legal status.
The tribunal nevertheless found that, from 24 November 2017, the claimant was a worker for the purposes of the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. On the holiday pay claim, it found his leave year ran from 7 July to 6 July, that 135 days of the final leave year had elapsed by termination on 18 November 2019, that no leave had been taken, and that his weekly pay should be calculated by reference to 20 hours at £8.21 per hour. It therefore awarded £340.06 under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
On unlawful deductions from wages, the tribunal found the claimant performed unmeasured work at 20 hours per week and had not been paid the national minimum wage for nearly all of the period from 24 November 2017 to 18 November 2019, subject to the two-year limit in section 23(4A) ERA 1996. It accepted that £1,050 was paid in August 2019 and £600 in October 2019 as ancillary revenue, but found no shortfall for August 2019, a recalculated shortfall of £138.00 for October 2019, £458.24 for 1 to 18 November 2019, and £12,983.14 for the remaining recoverable period, making a total award of £13,579.38.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal held the claimant was not an employee within section 230 ERA 1996 / section 42 ETA 1996, so the unfair dismissal claim could not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of the Extension of Jurisdiction Order. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the claimant was found not to be an employee and therefore could not pursue the contract claim in the tribunal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim succeeded under regulation 14 WTR 1998. The tribunal found the claimant was a worker from 24 November 2017, that his leave year ran from 7 July to 6 July, that 135 days of the final leave year had elapsed, and that he had taken no leave. | Upheld | — | £340 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded for non-payment of the national minimum wage as unauthorised deductions. The tribunal found the claimant was a worker from 24 November 2017, worked unmeasured work at 20 hours per week, and was only partly paid by way of ancillary revenue; recovery was limited by section 23(4A) ERA 1996 to deductions within the two-year period before the claim. | Upheld | — | £13,579 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,919
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Uber BV v Aslam
- section 230 ERA 1996
- section 42 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- regulation 14 WTR 1998
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 17 NMWA 1998
- section 23(4A) ERA 1996
- regulation 44 NMWR 2015
- regulation 6 NMWR 2015
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.