Case 2302047/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Harper Mrs Hambridge First v Morries Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302047/2023
- Decision date
- 11 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Harper Mrs Hambridge First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimants were not employees for the purposes of their claims brought under s.166 and s.182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That finding meant the statutory insolvency-related claims could not succeed.
The judgment then dismissed the claimants' claims for payments against the National Insurance Fund, including redundancy pay, holiday pay and notice pay, as not well founded. The decision records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Dismissed together with the other insolvency-related payment claims after the tribunal found the claimants were not employees for the purposes of their claims under s.166 and s.182 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed together with the other insolvency-related payment claims after the tribunal found the claimants were not employees for the purposes of their claims under s.166 and s.182 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Recorded here for the notice pay head of claim; dismissed on the same basis as the other claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.166 ERA 1996
- s.182 ERA 1996
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.