Case 2308371/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Aldi Celi v Ilirian Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2308371/2020
- Decision date
- 1 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swaffer Representation
- Venue
- ET London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Aldi Celi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIlirian Ltd was incorporated on 2 June 2020 to open a coffee shop in Greenwich, with the claimant and two others as shareholders and directors. The claimant produced a contract of employment dated 2 June 2020 saying he was employed as a director on a monthly salary of £4,500, but the respondent said the arrangement was a business partnership between the three shareholders. The tribunal refused the respondent's application for an adjournment and heard only the status issues.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal did not need to decide whether the automatically unfair reason aspect was properly pleaded because it found the claimant was not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Failed because the tribunal found there was no contract of employment and no employee relationship. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's unpaid wages claim failed because the tribunal found he was not a worker. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister for Pensions and National Insurance
- Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill
- Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd
- Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Neufeld
- Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Ltd
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Uber BV v Aslam
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
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.