Case 3311533/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Holliday First v P H Carpets and Flooring Services Limited (in Creditors voluntary liquidation) Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311533/2023
- Decision date
- 10 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Holliday First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at Bury St Edmunds by video on 4 April 2025 before Employment Judge Graham. The claimant appeared in person, the first respondent did not attend, and the second respondent was represented by Mr P Soni, lay representative. The tribunal's written judgment records a single finding: the claimant was not an employee of the first respondent.
On that basis, the complaints were dismissed. The judgment does not set out separate factual findings beyond the employment-status point, does not record any monetary award, and does not identify any remedy component. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the first respondent, and on that basis dismissed the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the first respondent, and on that basis dismissed the complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.