Mr K Lawrence v Dapper Collection Limited (in CVL) and 2 others — 2025

The tribunal considered whether the claimants, who were directors and shareholders of Dapper Collection Limited, were also employees for the purposes of claims to the Redundancy Payment Service after the company's insolvency. It applied the statutory definition in section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 and authorities on employment status, including the need for mutuality of obligation and the ability to look behind contractual labels to the reality of the relationship.

For Mr Lawrence, the tribunal accepted his evidence but found that he operated as the controlling person of the company in practice. He managed legal compliance, finances, payroll, stakeholder relationships, stock orders, staff training and the promotion of the company's success. Although his service contract called him an employee, the tribunal found there was nobody above him to regulate his activity and that he could work fewer hours or less effectively without consequence to him.

The tribunal concluded that Mr Lawrence did not have the mutuality of obligation required to be an employee under section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996. He was therefore not eligible for payment from the Redundancy Payment Service, and his claim was dismissed. Remedy did not arise for him.