Case 6001165/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Crosskey v Mr S Ash T/A AS Spotworks — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001165/2023
- Decision date
- 5 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bax Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Crosskey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 23 January 2024 before Employment Judge J Bax, the tribunal recorded that Mr M Crosskey was, at all material times to the claim between 1 June 2020 and 28 April 2023, an employee of Mr S Ash T/A AS Spotworks within the meaning of s.230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The extracted judgment does not set out any competing factual findings beyond that employment-status determination.
No monetary award is recorded in the extracted text, and no separate findings are given on dismissal, wages, working time, discrimination, or any other substantive claim. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing, but those reasons are not included in the extracted material provided here.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment records only a status finding: between 1 June 2020 and 28 April 2023, Mr M Crosskey was an employee of Mr S Ash T/A AS Spotworks within the meaning of s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate remedy or further claim outcome is stated in the extracted text. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230 Employment Rights Act 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.