Case 3311119/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M. Whittington-Buckley Respondent 1: Lightning Storm Limited (in liquidation) Respondent 2: Secretary of State for Business and Trade Heard: Norwich (by Cloud Video Platform) v Mr Soni, lay representative — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311119/2023
- Decision date
- 21 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Power
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M. Whittington-Buckley Respondent 1: Lightning Storm Limited (in liquidation) Respondent 2: Secretary of State for Business and Trade Heard: Norwich (by Cloud Video Platform)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Power sitting alone on 21 May 2024 in Norwich by Cloud Video Platform. The tribunal considered whether Mr M. Whittington-Buckley had employee status within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment states that he did not have employee status at the relevant time. On that basis, the tribunal held that his claims failed and were dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
The written record says the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. The decision was sent to the parties on 2 July 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment records only a preliminary hearing on employee status and does not set out the underlying claim heads. The tribunal held that the claimant did not have employee status within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so his claims failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 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.