Case 4102773/2024 · Employment Tribunal
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4102773/2024 Issued Following Final Hearing Heard at Edinburgh on the th of June 2024 with consideration of written submissions on th July 2024 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr John Crawford v , Solicitor 1. The Secretary of State for Business & Trade st Named and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 4102773/2024
- Decision date
- 31 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
3 namedClaimant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4102773/2024 Issued Following Final Hearing Heard at Edinburgh on the th of June 2024 with consideration of written submissions on th July 2024 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr John Crawford
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Airco Developments Ltd entered compulsory liquidation on 16 November 2023, had ceased trading on 31 October 2023, and that 31 October 2023 was the relevant date for the claims. It found that the claimant began working for the company on 12 January 2009 as Managing Director and, although he was a director and majority shareholder, there was a written contract and statement of particulars which the parties intended to govern the relationship. The tribunal accepted evidence from Mr Alan Speedy and found that the claimant worked full time, was paid through PAYE, received sick pay and holiday pay, took annual leave in practice on the same basis as other employees, and had no right of substitution.
Applying section 230 ERA 1996 and the authorities cited on employee status, including the concepts of mutuality of obligation, control and personal service, the tribunal held that the claimant was a limb A employee throughout the period 12 January 2009 to 31 October 2023. It rejected the Secretary of State's submission that he was self-employed or that dividend payments should be included in his week's pay. The tribunal held that the relevant calculations were to be based on the PAYE basic pay only, and that the dividend element arose from his shareholding rather than his employment.
On quantum, the tribunal found that the claimant's gross monthly basic pay for section 221 ERA 1996 purposes was £1,047.50, his weekly basic pay for redundancy purposes was £241.73, and he had 14 complete years of service. It awarded a redundancy payment of £5,076.33 gross, 12 weeks' notice pay of £2,900.76 net, compensation for 16 days of accrued but untaken holiday pay of £773.60 net, and October 2023 arrears of pay of £1,047.50 net.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment; calculated using gross weekly basic pay of £241.73 and 14 complete years of service. | Upheld | — | £5,076 |
| Other | 12 weeks' notice pay; the amendment to add this claim was allowed at the hearing. | Upheld | — | £2,901 |
| Holiday pay | Compensation for 16 days of accrued but untaken paid annual leave. | Upheld | — | £774 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Arrears of pay for October 2023. | Upheld | — | £1,048 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,798
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,076
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,722
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 230 ERA 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- mutuality of obligation
- control
- personal service
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.