Case 2600058/2023 · Employment Tribunal
TERESA WESTWOOD v ROBERT WOODHEAD LIMITED (in liquidation) and 3 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600058/2023
- Decision date
- 10 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Omambala KC
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
5 namedClaimant
TERESA WESTWOOD
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing in Nottingham on 10 August 2023, Employment Judge Omambala KC decided the correct employer for Teresa Westwood's claims against Robert Woodhead Ltd (in liquidation), Woodhead Enterprises Ltd, Robert Woodhead Holdings Ltd and Woodhead Regeneration Ltd. The agreed facts were that she started work in 2002 for Robert Woodhead Ltd, later became HR Manager, HR Director and then Managing Director, was paid by Robert Woodhead Ltd throughout, received her contracts from that company, and received her P45 from that company on termination. She worked across the Woodhead group and attended group meetings, but she never received a contract or payments from the other three respondents.
The tribunal applied the definition of employee and employer in s.230 ERA 1996, the Ready Mixed Concrete principles, and the approach in Clark v Harney Westwood & Reigels. It treated the written terms as the starting point, found the contract was clear and binding rather than a sham, and accepted the claimant's evidence that it reflected the parties' true intention and the practical reality of the relationship. Even if it had looked beyond the documents, the tribunal said the arrangement did not change over time, the claimant's work for the wider group was done under express terms with Robert Woodhead Ltd, and her role as a statutory director did not prevent that company being her employer.
The tribunal therefore found that Robert Woodhead Ltd was the claimant's employer and that she was not employed or engaged as a worker by Woodhead Enterprises Ltd, Robert Woodhead Holdings Ltd or Woodhead Regeneration Ltd. It dismissed, as against those respondents, the claims for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages, failure to consult and failure to pay holiday accrued but untaken holiday for want of jurisdiction. The judgment records that the claims against Robert Woodhead Ltd could continue and should be consolidated with the other claims against that respondent. No monetary award was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed against R2-R4 for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal found R1 was the claimant's employer and the claims against R1 could continue. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed against R2-R4 for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal found R1 was the claimant's employer and the claims against R1 could continue. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed against R2-R4 for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal found R1 was the claimant's employer and the claims against R1 could continue. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Failure to consult claim dismissed against R2-R4 for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal found R1 was the claimant's employer and the claims against R1 could continue. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed against R2-R4 for lack of jurisdiction; the tribunal found R1 was the claimant's employer and the claims against R1 could continue. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230(1), (2) and (4) ERA 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Clark v Harney Westwood & Reigels
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.