Case 2402832/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Frank Rotheram v NKT HVC Ltd and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402832/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Frank Rotheram
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned preliminary issues about the claimant's employment status after the sale of his company to the first respondent, and whether he had the continuous service required to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant had brought claims of unfair dismissal, harassment, and direct age and disability discrimination connected with the termination of his work on 31 October 2022.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not resign his employment on completion of the sale and that the sale documents did not prove resignation. It found that after completion he worked personally for the benefit of the company, was paid through payroll under PAYE, reported to managers, was integrated into the company, used the respondents' materials and tools, and did not work for anyone else.
The tribunal also found that signing the consultancy agreement did not make the claimant self-employed and that the agreement conflicted with the reality of the working relationship. It concluded that he remained an employee throughout the time he worked for the first respondent, there was no break in employment, and he had the requisite two years' continuous service at dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The preliminary judgment determined that the claimant was an employee throughout and had the requisite two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim; it did not determine the substantive unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment records that the claimant brought a harassment claim, but this preliminary issue judgment did not determine the substantive claim or specify the protected characteristic for harassment. | Other | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment records a direct age discrimination claim, but this preliminary issue judgment did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records a direct disability discrimination claim, but this preliminary issue judgment did not determine the substantive claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.83 Equality Act 2010
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
- Uber BV and others v Aslan
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd
- Ter-Berg v Simply Smile Manor House Ltd and Others
- Manning v Walker Crips Investment Management Ltd
- Real Time Civil Engineering Limited v Callaghan
- Ready Mixed Concrete
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
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.