Case 3311349/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Ben Revell v Past Pleasures Limited — 2022

Case reference: 3311349/2020
Decision date: 24 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tobin Representation
Venue: Watford Hearing Centre

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Ben Revell

Respondent

Past Pleasures Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a remote video hearing on 4 February 2022 before Employment Judge Tobin, the tribunal held that Mr Ben Revell was not an employee of Past Pleasures Limited before 1 May 2019 under s230 Employment Rights Act 1996. Because of that finding, he did not have the two years' continuous employment required by s108 Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal claim in relation to his dismissal on 17 June 2020.

The tribunal also recorded that he was not wrongfully dismissed, meaning he was not dismissed in breach of contract, and that he was not owed a redundancy payment under s155 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that he was not unfairly dismissed in breach of s94 Employment Rights Act 1996. Proceedings were therefore dismissed in full and no monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent before 1 May 2019 under s230 ERA 1996 and therefore lacked the two years' continuous employment required by s108 ERA 1996 to pursue unfair dismissal arising from his dismissal on 17 June 2020.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal found that the claimant was not wrongfully dismissed, meaning he was not dismissed in breach of contract.	Dismissed	—	—
Redundancy	The tribunal found that the claimant was not owed a redundancy payment under s155 ERA 1996.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.