Case 2409504/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs L Andrews (1) Mr B Andrews (2) v Charlie James Pie & Mash Limited and 1 other — 2023

Case reference: 2409504/2022
Decision date: 31 October 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mrs L Andrews (1) Mr B Andrews (2)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The preliminary hearing concerned whether the first claimant, Mrs Andrew, was an employee of Charlie James Pie & Mash Limited within section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996. She claimed payments relating to redundancy, notice pay and other monies following the company's liquidation. The Secretary of State resisted her claim on the basis that payments from the Redundancy Payments Service could only be made to employees.

The tribunal found that Mrs Andrew was the sole shareholder and a director of the company, and that although she had a document described as a contract of employment, it was a standard form document which did not identify any real structure of supervision or control over her role. Her pay was a fixed monthly amount, not tied to hours worked, holiday pay or National Minimum Wage requirements, and there was no notice of termination or other evidence showing clear employment obligations owed by the company to her.

Applying the authorities on employee status, the tribunal concluded that the irreducible minimum requirements for a contract of employment, including mutuality of obligation, control and personal service, were not established. Mrs Andrew was therefore not an employee within section 230 ERA 1996 and was not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment or related payments. The tribunal did not need to decide the second claimant's status because the Secretary of State had conceded that he was an employee at the material time.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	The tribunal found the first claimant was not an employee within section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore was not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The claim included notice pay. The tribunal found the first claimant was not an employee and was not entitled to redundancy or other related payments. The judgment did not separately analyse notice pay as a breach of contract claim.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The claim referred to other monies said to be due on insolvency, but the judgment did not identify or determine separate monetary heads beyond redundancy, notice pay and related payments. The first claimant's claim was unsuccessful because she was not an employee.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.