Case 2411646/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Yates v STAM Construction Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411646/2023
- Decision date
- 10 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Yates
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 24 May 2024, Employment Judge Horne held that Mr W Yates was not an employee under a contract of employment within the meaning of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994. On that basis, his claim for damages for breach of contract, described as notice pay, was dismissed.
The tribunal also found that Mr Yates was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 2 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. As a result, the tribunal stated that it would consider his complaint of failure to compensate him for untaken annual leave on termination of employment. That complaint was not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for damages for breach of contract (notice pay) dismissed because the claimant was found not to be an employee under a contract of employment within the meaning of the Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) Order 1994
- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- regulation 2 Working Time Regulations 1998
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.