Case 3200093/2024 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr Stephen Bays (2) Mrs Sarah Bays v Century Office Equipment (Essex) Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200093/2024
- Decision date
- 9 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hook Regional
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) Mr Stephen Bays (2) Mrs Sarah Bays
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimants had not established that they were employees for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On that basis, the first claimant's claims for a redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay and pension payment were not well founded and were dismissed. The second claimant's claims for a redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay were also not well founded and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Both claimants' redundancy payment claims were dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice pay claims were dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claims were dismissed as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The first claimant's pension payment claim was dismissed as not well founded; the judgment does not give a separate statutory label for that claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 of the Employment Rights Act
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.