Case 2400060/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Williams and others (see schedule) v Mrs Caroline Timmons t/a Hillside Care Home and 3 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 2400060/2019
- Decision date
- 29 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater REPRESENTATION
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr D Williams and others (see schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to decide whether Mr Paul Williams and Mrs Catherine Williams should remain respondents in claims brought by former Hillside Care Home employees. The underlying claims, as described in the reasons, were for holiday pay, unpaid wages and notice pay after the home closed on 5 October 2018 and the staff were made redundant.
The tribunal accepted that Paul and Catherine Williams were actively involved in running the home and had supported the business financially, including by guaranteeing the bank loan and making loans to the business. It held, however, that those facts did not make them partners. The tribunal relied on the purchase documents, CQC registration, financial accounts, HMRC material and a joint expert report, all of which identified Donn Timmons and Caroline Timmons as the partners. It also found there was no evidence that Paul and Catherine Williams took drawings from the business, and that they were paid by salary through PAYE instead.
The tribunal found that Donn Timmons’ correspondence in late 2015 and early 2016 referred to him as a partner and to the business as jointly owned, and that the March 2016 settlement document was between Donn Timmons and Caroline Williams only. It held that the document did not show a dissolution of the existing partnership or the creation of a new partnership including Paul and Catherine Williams. The tribunal concluded that Paul and Catherine Williams were not partners at any time up to the claimants’ dismissals and therefore removed them as respondents. The claims were to proceed against Mrs Caroline Timmons and Mr Donn Timmons only. No substantive remedy was decided at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing only: the tribunal granted the third and fourth respondents' application to be removed as respondents. No merits finding was made on the underlying holiday pay, unpaid wages or notice pay claims, which were to proceed against the first and second respondents. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Partnership Act 1890 s.1(1)
- Partnership Act 1890 s.32
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.