Case 3311597/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Master Ghost Scott-Freeman v Bell Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311597/2021
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Master Ghost Scott-Freeman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Master Ghost Scott-Freeman, worked for Bell Group Limited from 23 March 2021, initially via Aspire Evolve and then directly. The tribunal found that there was no written contract, no written statement of particulars, and no clear written record of the pay or bonus arrangements, which contributed to the dispute about wages and working practices. The claimant said he was dismissed on 13 May 2021 because of protected disclosures or because he had asserted a statutory right.
On the whistleblowing side, the tribunal accepted only one alleged protected disclosure: a WhatsApp message sent to Jeff Noordermeer on 23 April 2021 referring to other workers not being paid. It also held that the claimant’s 8 May 2021 WhatsApp messages to Chris Mitchell, read together, made it reasonably clear that he was asserting a statutory right to a written statement of employment particulars under s104 ERA 1996, with reference to Mennell v Newell & Wright [1997] IRLR 519. However, the tribunal found that those matters were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.
The tribunal rejected the claimant’s contention that he had been dismissed at the early May Zoom meeting, finding that his employment continued until Chris Mitchell terminated it on 13 May 2021. It found that the real reason for dismissal was the wider breakdown around the claimant’s work arrangements: use of invoices rather than timesheets, changing targets, recruitment of his own workers, and the resulting administrative and payment difficulties. Those issues, rather than the protected disclosure or statutory-right point, were held to be the basis for the dismissal.
The unlawful deductions from wages claim also failed. The claimant’s figures changed several times during the hearing, the tribunal refused his late application to amend the claim to the revised £6,840.39 case, and it held that he had not proved the sums said to be due or the basis on which any deduction was unlawful. Because no substantive claim succeeded, there was no remedy hearing, no award, and no uplift under s38 of the Employment Act 2002.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claimant alleged dismissal because he made a protected disclosure and, in the same dismissal claim, that he had asserted a statutory right to a written statement of employment particulars under s104 ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the 23 April 2021 WhatsApp to Jeff Noordermeer was a protected disclosure, and held that the 8 May 2021 WhatsApp messages to Chris Mitchell, read together, made it reasonably clear that the claimant was asserting the right to a written statement, but found neither matter was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant pursued unpaid wages and later reformulated the claim at closing submissions as £6,840.39. The tribunal refused a late amendment to advance that revised case and held that he had not proved what he was entitled to be paid or what deductions, if any, were unlawful. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s104(3) ERA 1996
- Mennell v Newell & Wright [1997] IRLR 519
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.