Case 3200241/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Weiss v Miami Weiss Ltd- In Liquidation and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200241/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Hallen Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms J Weiss
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was a director and sole shareholder of the first Respondent by the time it entered creditors voluntary liquidation in October 2022. She claimed statutory payments from the National Insurance Fund for redundancy pay, notice pay, arrears of wages and holiday pay, arguing that she was an employee under a contract of employment.
The Tribunal considered whether the Claimant was an employee under section 230 ERA. It found that she had not proved mutuality of obligation or sufficient control. The Tribunal relied on findings that she controlled the business, made the important decisions, could choose her own hours, was not subject to clocking in or managerial supervision, and was treated differently from staff who had written contracts and statutory employment terms.
The Tribunal also found other practices inconsistent with a contract of employment, including that the Claimant had no right to paid holiday, pension, disciplinary or grievance procedure, minimum notice, or termination of the relationship in the way employees did. It concluded that she was not employed under a contract of employment and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for redundancy pay from the National Insurance Fund was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee of the first Respondent under section 230 ERA. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim included notice pay. It was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not employed under a contract of employment and was therefore not entitled to payments from the National Insurance Fund. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim included arrears of wages. It was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee of the first Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim included holiday pay. It was dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant was not an employee of the first Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete test
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- irreducible minimum
- Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd
- Secretary of State v Neufeld
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.