Mr Laine Brockwell v Dyke Alehouse Limited — 2025

Mr Brockwell was a director and shareholder of Dyke Alehouse Limited. The tribunal found that the parties' relationship was governed by a Partnership Agreement dated 19 December 2023, under which the Claimant exchanged a 20% shareholding valued at £10,000 for an initial four-month period of work, then moved to a £2,500 monthly payment, with profit-sharing and joint responsibility for business decisions. The tribunal found there was no separate written employment contract and no agreed overtime arrangement.

Applying s.230 ERA 1996 and the approach in Ready Mixed Concrete, and referring to Clark v Clark Construction Initiatives Ltd, Tiffin v Lester Aldridge LLP and Bradley Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Limited, the tribunal concluded that the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker. It relied on the equity and profit-sharing structure, the absence of standard employment terms such as holiday pay or sick pay, the use of invoices for March and April 2024 that were paid gross without PAYE, the Claimant's autonomy over day-to-day operations, and the absence of a strict obligation of personal service.

Because the Claimant was not an employee or worker, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unlawful deduction of wages and holiday pay complaints, and both were dismissed. In the alternative, the tribunal said that the January 2024 additional-hours point did not generate further pay, that the alleged work on 13 and 14 November 2023 was not included in the ET1 and was out of time, and that the holiday pay claim failed because the Claimant had not proved how much leave had accrued and remained unpaid. The Claimant's request for £500 for stress was refused because compensation for stress or injury to feelings is not available for unlawful deduction of wages or holiday pay claims.