Case 3300749/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr P Soni, Representative — 2022
- Case reference
- 3300749/2022
- Decision date
- 7 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
- Venue
- Watford via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss Palmer, was the sole shareholder and sole director of Gap Presents Ltd. She said she had been advised by accountants to incorporate when her business turnover exceeded the VAT threshold, and the tribunal accepted that she gave no thought at the time to how her status would change. The evidence showed no written contract of employment, and the claimant said there was no practical change in the way she worked after incorporation.
The tribunal applied the guidance in Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Neufeld and Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd, and focused on whether there had been any real handling of an employment relationship or any discussion of employment terms. It found that the arrangement was made with the involvement of accountants for tax purposes, that the claimant had not considered employment status, and that the work she did for the company was the work one would expect from a director rather than an employee. On that basis, it held that she was never an employee within section 230(1) and (2) of the ERA 1996.
Because the claimant was not an employee, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to determine her claims for redundancy payment, arrears of pay, unpaid holiday pay and notice pay under Part XII ERA 1996. All of those claims were therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was never an employee of the second respondent within section 230(1) and (2) ERA 1996, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was never an employee of the second respondent within section 230(1) and (2) ERA 1996, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was never an employee of the second respondent within section 230(1) and (2) ERA 1996, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was never an employee of the second respondent within section 230(1) and (2) ERA 1996, so it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.230(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v Neufeld
- Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd
- Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd
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.