Case 3306977/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Baldwin v Firexo Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3306977/2023
- Decision date
- 19 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Baldwin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Baldwin joined Firexo Ltd on 1 February 2019 as Group Operations Director on £80,000 plus a £6,000 car allowance. The tribunal accepted that he was an employee from February 2019 to April 2019, but found that in April 2019 the parties genuinely agreed to move him to self-employed status for financial reasons. After that change he invoiced through his consultancy company, tax and NI were not operated through PAYE, and the tribunal found that the subsequent arrangements were reflected in the parties' actual dealings rather than being a sham.
The tribunal then examined the disputed period from April 2019 to July 2023 by reference to mutuality of obligation, personal performance, control, and the other features of the relationship, citing Ready Mixed Concrete and Autoclenz. It found there was no mutuality of obligation between March 2020 and February 2022, when the respondent could not afford to pay him, he stopped submitting invoices, and he worked elsewhere for part of that time. It also found that personal performance was required, and that the respondent retained some control over what he did, but gave those factors less weight than the pay and tax arrangements and the parties' own description of the relationship.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant returned to work in July 2021 and later invoiced again from February 2022, but found there was no change in status when he resumed work or when invoicing restarted. It concluded that the post-April 2019 relationship was not consistent with employment and that he was not an employee from April 2019 to July 2023. As a result, he did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Presented as an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA 1996. An application to amend to automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure under s.103A ERA 1996 was refused at a preliminary hearing. The notice pay box on the claim form was confirmed to have been ticked in error and was not pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Autoclenz v Belcher
- range of reasonable responses
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 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.