Case 2600442/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Geoffrey Bown v Victoria Mills Management Limited — 2021

Case reference: 2600442/2021
Decision date: 7 July 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Blackwell
Venue: Nottingham

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Geoffrey Bown

Respondent

Victoria Mills Management Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal heard Mr Geoffrey Bown’s claims against Victoria Mills Management Limited at Nottingham on 1 December 2021, with Employment Judge Blackwell sitting alone. The dispositive issue was whether Mr Bown was an employee within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the judgment records that he did not contend in the alternative that he was a worker within section 230(2). The tribunal therefore treated the employment-status question as determinative of all claims.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of section 230(1) ERA 1996 and did not contend that he was a worker under section 230(2).	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of section 230(1) ERA 1996 and did not contend that he was a worker under section 230(2).	Dismissed	—	—
Working time regulations	Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of section 230(1) ERA 1996 and did not contend that he was a worker under section 230(2).	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.