Case 3316064/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The Construction Industry Training Board — 2020
- Case reference
- 3316064/2019
- Decision date
- 20 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Bloom Members
- Panel members
- Ms L Durrant, Mr G Page
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn House Carpentry Limited appealed against a 2018 levy assessment notice served by the Construction Industry Training Board on 6 April 2019 in the sum of £461. The tribunal recorded that the Appellant accepted it was engaged in construction activity within Schedule 1 of the relevant Order and also accepted that it fell within the definition of an enterprise engaged in the construction industry for levy purposes.
The issue argued at the hearing was not the amount of the levy, but whether the company was liable because it had never been formally registered with the Board. The tribunal held that individual registration was not required for liability to arise. It found that, provided the assessment had been correctly calculated and validly served, liability followed without the need for separate registration.
The tribunal referred to the Industrial Training Act 1982 and the relevant Orders, and noted its view that the levy operated like a tax in the sense that it was payable if the conditions applied whether or not the payer received a direct benefit. On that basis, the tribunal found the assessment notice had been validly served and that the Appellant was liable to pay the levy. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Appeal by In House Carpentry Limited against a levy assessment notice served on 6 April 2019 in the sum of £461.00, made under the Industrial Training Act 1982. | 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.