Case 3302746/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Secretary of State for Business & Trade and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302746/2023
- Decision date
- 15 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Z Islam Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Peter Dewbery was an employee of Fitness In Time Ltd for the purposes of ss.166 and 182 ERA 1996, rejecting the Secretary of State's case that he was not employed when the company entered liquidation. It accepted that the 2011 document headed 'Statement of Employment Between Peter Dewberry and Fitness In Time Limited' was genuine rather than a sham, and that it reflected the relationship in practice even though some terms had not been updated as the business expanded.
The tribunal found that Mr Dewbery personally carried out the work, was subject to sufficient control, and had the mutuality and personal service required by Ready Mixed Concrete. It relied on evidence that he worked around 50 hours a week across the gyms, received PAYE payslips and P60s, was enrolled in NEST, received furlough payments and statutory sick pay, and continued to perform the role himself. Applying Autoclenz, Clark, Neufeld and Howe, and Knight, the tribunal held that being sole director and shareholder, using a director's loan account, taking dividends, investing money into the company, and not always paying himself the contractual rate or the national minimum wage did not prevent employee status.
Having found employee status, the tribunal awarded redundancy pay of £4,750, notice pay of £4,750, holiday pay of £135.71, and arrears of wages of £3,800, making a total of £13,435.71. It calculated redundancy and notice pay using a weekly rate of £475 based on 50 hours at the £9.50 NMW, treated 24 June 2022 as the redundancy date, used 15 September 2022 as the relevant insolvency date for the wages claim, and assessed holiday pay pro rata from the leave year starting 11 August 2022.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded under s.163 ERA 1996 after the tribunal found he was an employee. Relevant date treated as 24 June 2022 and the award was calculated using a weekly rate of £475 based on 50 hours at the NMW. | Upheld | — | £4,750 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was held well founded and awarded as 10 weeks' notice pay under s.86 ERA 1996. The tribunal calculated it at £475 per week and used gross pay for tax treatment as post-employment notice pay. | Upheld | — | £4,750 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay was awarded under regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal applied a pro-rata calculation from the leave year starting 11 August 2022. | Upheld | — | £136 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of wages were awarded for up to 8 weeks under ss.182-188 ERA 1996, with 15 September 2022 treated as the relevant insolvency date. The amount was calculated at £475 per week. | Upheld | — | £3,800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,436
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Autoclenz
- 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
- Pagetti v Cobb
- s.166 ERA 1996
- s.182 ERA 1996
- s.230 ERA 1996
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.