Case 6000688/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Monkman v Lakeland Artisan Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000688/2025
- Decision date
- 29 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G Monkman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard on 24 September 2025 at Liverpool by CVP before Employment Judge Ainscough sitting alone. The claimant was in person. The first respondent did not attend, and the second respondent was represented by Mr Soni.
The tribunal's key finding was that Mr Monkman was not an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That finding was decisive for the statutory claims before the tribunal.
On that basis, the claim for redundancy pay under section 166 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. The tribunal also dismissed the claim for holiday pay and unpaid wages brought in accordance with section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of section 230 ERA 1996, so the redundancy pay claim under section 166 ERA 1996 was unsuccessful and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim for holiday pay and unpaid wages brought in accordance with section 182 ERA 1996 was unsuccessful and dismissed. The tribunal's finding that the claimant was not an employee under section 230 ERA 1996 meant he could not succeed on this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.166 ERA 1996
- s.182 ERA 1996
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.