Case 4101601/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Parker v Staff Buddy Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101601/2022
- Decision date
- 13 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sangster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Parker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant and the respondent signed an Agreement in Principle on 23 June 2021 under which he was to join as Business Development Manager from 14 June 2021. The agreement provided for 25% equity, salary only once new clients were brought on board, and commission at a set 2% of billed revenue per client. The tribunal found that, in practice, the claimant was not required to perform the work personally, could have been assisted or replaced by others, was not subject to day-to-day control, could work as much or as little as he wished, and was free to carry on other business activities.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was pleaded as unauthorised deductions from wages and/or breach of contract. For 14 June to 31 December 2021 the tribunal held the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker, so it had no jurisdiction over the salary and commission claims for that period. For 2 January to 19 February 2022 the claimant was an employee, but the tribunal found he had no contractual or legal entitlement to the claimed commission of £4,405.20 in respect of Manual, Walkers Logistics and Growers Garden. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- New Century Cleaning Co Limited v Church
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Hall v Lorimer
- Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde & Co LLP
- Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith
- Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Ltd v Baird
- Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
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.