Case 2413527/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Benatar v Ream Hills Lake Leisure Park Ltd FINAL HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413527/2020
- Decision date
- 11 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Benatar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard that Mr N Benatar was recruited for the General Manager vacancy at Ream Hills Lake Leisure Park Ltd after a job advert stating the role would be 'self employed'. He was interviewed by Mr Chris Threlfall and Ms Lewin, did two days' trial work, accepted the role in early June 2020, and started work on 22 June 2020. The tribunal found that the parties had formed a contractual relationship when he applied, was interviewed, carried out trial work, accepted the offer, and commenced work.
Although the respondent described the role as self-employed and expected the claimant to deal with his own tax and national insurance, the tribunal held that this did not prevent him being a 'worker' under section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that he worked as General Manager on fixed hours and days, in return for agreed consideration including salary, accommodation and other benefits, and that he was part of the respondent's management team rather than an independent contractor providing services to a client or customer.
The claim concerned non-payment of wages for the week commencing 22 June 2020. The tribunal accepted that payment arrangements were discussed on 24 June 2020, that the weekly gross sum due was £499.00, and that the respondent later withheld payment. It rejected the respondent's reasons for non-payment, including dissatisfaction with performance, recruitment expense and the claimant's short notice of termination, as a lawful basis for withholding wages under Part 2 of the 1996 Act.
The tribunal therefore held that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages, or non-payment of wages, within section 13 ERA 1996. It ordered the respondent to pay £480.77 gross, being one week's pay calculated from an annual salary of £25,000 divided by 52.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claimant was a 'worker' for the purposes of section 13 ERA 1996 and that the respondent unlawfully failed to pay wages for the week commencing 22 June 2020. The award was the gross sum of one week's pay, calculated from an agreed annual figure of £25,000 divided by 52. | Upheld | — | £481 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £481
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 230(3) ERA 1996
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.