Case 2604270/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Roe v Swift Scaffolding LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2604270/2020
- Decision date
- 12 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Roe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 7 April 2021, before Employment Judge Blackwell sitting alone by CVP, the tribunal identified that the immediate issue was whether Mr Roe was an employee within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also noted that Mr Roe's claim for 'other payments' related to alleged non-payment of wages, and that it would need to determine whether he was a worker within section 230(3) of the 1996 Act.
During Mr Roe's evidence, a dispute arose about the authenticity of signatures appearing at pages 75, 78 and 80 of the bundle. Mr Roe said the signatures were not his, that on 4 June 2018 he was working on a site at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, that he had never met the witness to the signature at page 80, Mr David Hart, and that he had never been to Ascot. He produced diary entries for the week commencing 4 June 2018 and sample signatures, and the respondent asked for an adjournment so that site diaries and any available vehicle tracking records could be obtained.
The parties agreed that it would be sensible to instruct a joint handwriting expert and to adjourn so that further material could be gathered. The tribunal therefore adjourned the case part heard, to resume by CVP on 6 July 2021 at 10:00 am. No final liability or remedy decision was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | No substantive claim outcome was determined in this hearing. The tribunal adjourned the case part heard to determine, among other issues, whether Mr Roe was an employee within section 230(1) ERA 1996, whether he was a worker within section 230(3) ERA 1996, and whether his 'other payments' claim related to alleged non-payment of wages. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP
- Hands, Henning, Reinhard v Ondra LLP
- Uber BV and Others v Aslam and Others
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde and Co LLP
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 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.