Case 2414103/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hay v AFC Fylde Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414103/2020
- Decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing, Judge Brian Doyle held that Mr A Hay was not an "employee" employed by AFC Fylde Ltd at the relevant times, although he was a "worker" employed by the respondent at those times. That status finding meant the claims for unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy payment, protective award, and wrongful dismissal (notice pay) could not proceed further.
Those four complaints were dismissed. The judgment does not contain any substantive liability findings on those claims beyond the threshold status ruling that prevented them from proceeding.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's remaining complaints for unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay may proceed to a final hearing, which was to be listed separately. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant was not an employee at the relevant times, so the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed further. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held the claimant was not an employee at the relevant times, so the statutory redundancy payment complaint could not proceed further. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | This reflects the protective award complaint, which the tribunal said could not proceed further because the claimant was not an employee at the relevant times. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal described this as a wrongful dismissal (notice pay) complaint and dismissed it because the claimant was not an employee at the relevant times. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.