Case 6005515/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr R Allen v Nourish on the Brow Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2025

Case reference: 6005515/2024
Decision date: 5 August 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ainscough

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr R Allen

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Ainscough sat alone at Liverpool by CVP on 7 July 2025. The tribunal found that Mr R Allen was not an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That finding was determinative of the redundancy payment claim under section 166 ERA 1996, which was dismissed.

The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claim for payments of holiday pay, notice pay and wages under section 182 ERA 1996. The written record states that the claim was unsuccessful and dismissed, and no monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the redundancy payment claim under section 166 ERA 1996 was unsuccessful.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Claim for payments of holiday pay, notice pay and wages in accordance with section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal dismissed the claim as unsuccessful.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.