Case 2302962/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Farmer v The City Alehouse Group Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302962/2022
- Decision date
- 25 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr W Farmer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend and was not represented. The First Respondent also did not attend and was not represented. The Second Respondent was represented by a lay representative.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the First Respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the claims for redundancy pay, notice pay, and holiday pay were found not well founded and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee of the First Respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the redundancy pay claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this as a claim for notice pay; it was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.