Case 3201377/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G Alimi v Stratford Advice Arcade (A company limited by guarantee) — 2020

Case reference: 3201377/2019
Decision date: 31 March 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge John Crosfill
Venue: East London Hearing Centre

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr G Alimi

Respondent

Stratford Advice Arcade (A company limited by guarantee)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal considered a preliminary issue on employment status for Mr G Alimi, who had worked for Stratford Advice Arcade from 3 February 2011 to 28 February 2019 as a Finance Officer. The judge found that the relationship began after an offer for a temporary finance role, but before work started the parties agreed that he would operate on a freelance basis. The claimant invoiced through G.A. Group & Co, was responsible for his own tax and national insurance, and had other clients as well as work for the respondent.

Applying Ready-Mixed Concrete, Market Investigations, Autoclenz and the other authorities cited in the reasons, the tribunal held that Mr Alimi was not an employee under s.230(1) ERA 1996. The judge rejected his case that the freelance arrangement had been imposed on him and accepted that he had agreed to it, while noting that the absence of sick pay, holiday pay and pension rights was consistent with that agreement. On that basis the unfair dismissal and breach of contract complaints did not succeed on the employee-status issue.

The tribunal nevertheless held that Mr Alimi was a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996. It found that he undertook to perform the work personally, worked fixed hours on regular days at the respondent's premises, used the respondent's facilities, and was integrated into the organisation to a significant extent, but that the respondent was not a client or customer of a business carried on by him. The judge relied in particular on the distinction between the claimant's work for the respondent and the more occasional work he did for others.

For Equality Act 2010 purposes the tribunal held that he was also 'in employment'. The judgment was a preliminary status decision only and did not determine liability or remedy for the whistleblowing, unlawful deductions, working time, holiday pay or equal pay complaints. No award was made in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Preliminary status ruling only. The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee within s.230(1) ERA 1996, so the unfair dismissal complaint did not succeed on the status issue. No merits determination was made.	Other	—	—
Breach of contract	Preliminary status ruling only. The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee within s.230(1) ERA 1996, so the notice pay / breach of contract complaint did not succeed on the status issue. No merits determination was made.	Other	—	—
Whistleblowing	The tribunal held that the claimant was a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996. This meant the protected-disclosure detriment claims remained capable of proceeding, but the judgment did not decide liability on the merits.	Other	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal held that the claimant was a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996. The unlawful deductions claim was not finally determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—
Working time regulations	The tribunal held that the claimant was a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996, so the Working Time Regulations claim was not defeated on status grounds. No merits determination was made.	Other	—	—
Holiday pay	The tribunal held that the claimant was a worker under s.230(3)(b) ERA 1996. The holiday pay complaint was not finally determined in this judgment.

Legal tests applied

10 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.

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.