Case 3300553/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person (unrepresented) For the First v Secretary of State for Business and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300553/2023
- Decision date
- 22 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Z Islam Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
4 namedClaimant
In person (unrepresented) For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Glen Ford brought claims for redundancy pay, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of wages following the liquidation of Paxford Composites Ltd. The Secretary of State defended the case on the basis that he was not an employee. The tribunal therefore had to decide whether he was an employee for the purposes of ss.166 and 182 ERA 1996.
The tribunal accepted that the signed service agreement dated 9 May 2006 was genuine. It found that the document, which referred throughout to the Executive's employment, had been drafted by a solicitor after the management buyout. The fact that the agreement had not been updated after changes in the company's board, name and remuneration arrangements did not make it a sham or show that the contract had been discharged. The tribunal also found that, once he became sole director in July 2015, Mr Ford was entitled to vary the agreement with himself.
Applying Ready Mixed Concrete, Autoclenz, Clark and Neufeld, the tribunal found that the Claimant worked personally, was subject to sufficient control, and had mutuality of obligation. It relied on evidence that he worked regular hours, clocked in and out, booked holidays through the HR system, received sick pay and pension contributions, and carried out engineering, administrative, sales and governance work alongside other staff. His shareholding, loans to the company and personal guarantee were treated as factors that did not prevent employee status.
On remuneration, the tribunal accepted that the Claimant had at different times been paid through PAYE, a mix of PAYE and dividends, and then again through PAYE from March 2022 at a reduced amount because of financial difficulties. It accepted his explanation that he did not appreciate the legal significance of paying himself below the national minimum wage. Applying Knight, the tribunal held that there had been no variation or discharge of the contract, only a choice to take a lower salary. It concluded that the factors pointing towards employment status outweighed those against and awarded redundancy pay of £12,112.50, notice pay of £4,750, holiday pay of £1,140 and arrears of wages of £1,520, making a total of £19,522.50.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Employee status was accepted. Redundancy pay was calculated at the national minimum wage using a weekly wage of £475, 17 years' service, and 1.5 weeks' pay for each full year after age 41. | Upheld | — | £12,113 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment described this as notice pay and awarded 10 weeks' pay under s.86 ERA 1996, calculated on gross pay at £475 per week. | Upheld | — | £4,750 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded under regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 on a pro rata basis for the leave year starting 14 February 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,140 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal described this as arrears of wages for 1 to 22 July 2022 and said the Claimant was responsible for tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,520 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,523
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.166 ERA 1996
- s.182 ERA 1996
- s.230 ERA 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd
- Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Neufeld and Howe
- Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v Knight
- s.86 ERA 1996
- Regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Pagetti v Cobb
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.