Case 2409302/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Abbotson Second Claimant: Mrs A Abbotson First v La Maison Retail Limited (In Liquidation) Second Respondent: The Secretary of State for Business & Trade — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409302/2023
- Decision date
- 5 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Cowen REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Abbotson Second Claimant: Mrs A Abbotson First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants were the only directors and equal shareholders of La Maison Retail Limited, which entered creditors voluntary liquidation on 1 August 2023. They sought payments from the Redundancy Service, while the Secretary of State contended that they were not employees of the company.
The tribunal found that there was no written contract and that the claimants had complete control over their work, including hours, holidays and duties, without supervision or management by anyone else. It also found that their payment arrangements, including PAYE salary and the ability to take dividends when finances permitted, pointed away from a contract of service.
Balancing those factors, the tribunal held that the claimants were not employees of the first respondent for the purposes of section 230 ERA 1996. Their claims therefore failed and were dismissed, with no remedy awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim was for payments from the Redundancy Service following the first respondent's liquidation. The tribunal dismissed the claim because the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing included Working Time Regulations, but the judgment focused on whether the claimant was an employee and held that the claims failed on that basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing included breach of contract, but the judgment focused on whether the claimant was an employee and held that the claims failed on that basis. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 166 and 182 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Neufeld
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.