Mr M Okoro v Diamond Hangar Limited — 2025

The tribunal found that Mr Okoro was employed by Diamond Hangar Limited under a contract of employment from 30 August 2018 to 4 June 2024, notwithstanding the written service agreement describing him as a contractor and his self-employed tax treatment. It held that the reality of the relationship was one of employment because he worked under Prince Eze's control and direction, was paid a salary, had an integral and wide-ranging role, and was treated in practice as staff. The tribunal applied the Ready Mix Concrete approach, the Hall v Lorimer holistic assessment and the Nethemere irreducible minimum of obligation analysis in reaching that conclusion, and rejected the respondent's illegality argument because it found no deliberate attempt to defraud HMRC.

On the termination issues, the tribunal found that the claimant was told on 1 March 2024 that his services were temporarily suspended as part of a restructuring, and that the letter of 4 March 2024 also described the position as temporary and not performance-related. It held that the contract did not end in March 2024. Instead, the claimant resigned by email on 4 June 2024 because he had not been paid promptly after March 2024, had not been paid at all for May 2024, and had received no meaningful response to repeated requests for payment and clarification. The tribunal held that this was a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and therefore constructive unfair dismissal, applying Western Excavating, section 95 and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The respondent's allegations that the claimant had mismanaged contracts or misused his position were rejected, including the allegations concerning tenant contracts, Manor Knights, James Grange, Peter Courtney, Greetings Work, ABM and Swiss Ports. The tribunal found that the respondent had not proved misconduct, redundancy, Polkey dismissal anyway, or contributory fault, and it rejected the argument that later-discovered matters justified a 100% reduction. The complaints of wrongful dismissal / notice pay and unauthorised deductions from wages were upheld, with the tribunal finding that the contractual notice provision required six months' salary in a lump sum within seven days and that the claimant was owed monthly pay for March, April and May 2024. Remedy was reserved to a later hearing.