Case 3327649/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A Frost v Paragon Land & Estates Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3327649/2019
- Decision date
- 29 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A Frost
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Frost brought claims arising from work for Paragon Land & Estates Limited, including unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, breach of contract, unlawful deduction of wages and disability discrimination. The tribunal found that in about August 2016 the parties agreed he would be paid £350 per week, or £1,400 per month, for half a day's work each week, and that the arrangement was for consultancy services rather than employment. It relied on the way the arrangement operated in practice: the claimant invoiced for work, was paid on invoice, was not taxed at source, received no holiday pay, sick pay, pension contributions or disciplinary/grievance rights, could decline work, and was free to work for others.
The tribunal found that the relationship ended by Mr Parisi's email of 17 December 2016, which said he would not agree any further payments and that the work relationship was over. It rejected the claimant's case that termination occurred in November 2019. On that footing, the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims also failed because the claimant did not have the two years' continuity of service required, and the tribunal further held that he did not have employee status for unfair dismissal, redundancy or breach of contract purposes.
On time limits, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's detention and medication in late 2016 and some of 2017 may have made it difficult to present claims within the initial three months, but it found there was no satisfactory explanation for waiting until December 2019. It noted that he knew generally about tribunal time limits by January 2017, had approached solicitors in 2017, drafted an ACAS employment report on 7 November 2019, and still did not present the claim until 17 December 2019 after the ACAS certificate issued on 28 November 2019. Applying the Equality Act 'just and equitable' test and the Employment Rights Act 'not reasonably practicable' test, the tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination and wages claims as out of time. All claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed. The tribunal found the working relationship ended on 17 December 2016, that the claimant was an independent contractor rather than an employee, and that he also lacked the two years' continuity of service required for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant did not have employee status on the facts and, in any event, did not have the necessary continuity of service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant was working under a contract for services rather than a contract of service, so he lacked the status required for a breach of contract claim in the tribunal, and the claim was also out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal also held that the claimant's relationship with the respondent was that of an independent contractor rather than employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed as out of time. The claim was based on a perceived disability / false perception that the claimant was bipolar, with alleged acts in June 2016 and December 2016; the tribunal refused to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.123(1) Equality Act 2010 just and equitable
- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 not reasonably practicable
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre
- Hall v ADP Dealer Service Ltd
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- Theobald v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
- Hall (Inspector of Taxes) v Lorimer
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.