Case 2401667/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Riley v Liverpool Brewing Company — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401667/2022
- Decision date
- 24 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Riley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal in Mr L Riley's case against Liverpool Brewing Company determined two preliminary issues. It held that, by reason of section 207B(3) and (4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the claim was presented to the tribunal within time.
The tribunal also found that the claimant was an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 during the period 1 October 2018 to 24 September 2021. The written record does not contain any substantive merits findings or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue: the tribunal held, by reason of section 207B(3) and (4) Employment Rights Act 1996, that the claimant's claim was presented in time. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Preliminary issue: the tribunal found that the claimant was an employee within the meaning of section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 during 1 October 2018 to 24 September 2021. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 207B(3) and (4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.