(1) Mr Steven Whitehead & (2) Mrs Nicola Whitehead v Proplas Building & Glazing Solutions Limited — 2024

Mr Steven Whitehead and Mrs Nicola Whitehead brought claims for redundancy payments against Proplas Building & Glazing Solutions Limited. The case was heard remotely on 1 July 2024 before Employment Judge Tobin sitting alone. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal required evidence from Mrs Whitehead and considered the absence of Mr Whitehead before deciding whether either claimant was in fact an employee for the purposes of redundancy pay under s230 Employment Rights Act 1996.

The judge found that both claimants were the only directors of the respondent company. He found that Mr Whitehead controlled the business and described it as a "one-man band". He also found that Mrs Whitehead's account of her work was vague and unsatisfactory: she said she did secretarial work from home, but she could not identify a contract of employment, could not remember when she started, and gave no clear explanation of the role beyond general references to typing quotations, payment plans and answering telephone calls. The tribunal was not persuaded that she had worked for the business.

The tribunal further found that the letter dated 15 January 2024, which said the respondent would not contest the redundancy pay claims, was deliberately opaque and sought to hide that both claimants had taken the decision, on behalf of the company, not to defend the claims. The judge said the claimants sought to gain a financial benefit knowing that they were not in fact employees. On that basis, the tribunal held that neither Mr Whitehead nor Mrs Whitehead was an employee of the respondent company and dismissed both redundancy payment claims.