Case 3200734/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Christopher Beard v Phasor Electrical Limited (Creditors in Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200734/2023
- Decision date
- 6 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Farrall Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Christopher Beard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant sought redundancy pay, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of wages from the National Insurance Fund after Phasor Electrical Limited entered voluntary liquidation. The Secretary of State disputed entitlement on the basis that the claimant was not an employee of the company within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 at the time of insolvency.
The tribunal found that the claimant was a director and 100% shareholder. It considered a 2006 written offer letter, payslips, P60s and bank payments. The tribunal accepted that some payslip and bank payment evidence supported the claimant's assertion that he was an employee, but found there was no written contract reflecting the terms asserted at insolvency and no evidence about the claimant's role beyond managing the business or how he performed any contract.
The tribunal found that payments were erratic, did not accord with the salary stated in the insolvency application, and suggested there was no obligation to provide regular fixed payment as expected in a contract of employment. It also treated the absence of national minimum wage, tax and national insurance payments, together with the claimant's 100% shareholding, as factors pointing away from employee status. The claimant had not discharged the burden of proving employee status at the date of insolvency, so the claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant had not proved he was an employee of Phasor Electrical Limited at the date of insolvency and was therefore not entitled to payment from the National Insurance Fund. | Dismissed | — | £0 |
| Breach of contract | The claim included notice pay from the National Insurance Fund; it was dismissed because employee status at the date of insolvency was not established. | Dismissed | — | £0 |
| Holiday pay | The claim for holiday pay from the National Insurance Fund was dismissed because employee status at the date of insolvency was not established. | Dismissed | — | £0 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim included arrears of wages from the National Insurance Fund; it was dismissed because employee status at the date of insolvency was not established. | Dismissed | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss.166, 167 and 168 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.182 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.184 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.185 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.54 National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- s.1 National Minimum Wage Act 1998
- Ready Mixed Concrete criteria
- Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd
- Secretary of State v Neufield and Howe
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.