Case 6021091/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Anbouche v JackRabbit Brewing Co Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6021091/2025
- Decision date
- 12 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Anbouche
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Anbouche's claim for unfair constructive dismissal was dismissed because the Tribunal found that he was not an employee of JackRabbit Brewing Co Ltd within s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. His direct race and religion or belief discrimination claims were also dismissed because he was not a person with a contract personally to do work within s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal therefore concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.
Mr Anbouche was a founder, director and shareholder of the Respondent throughout the relevant period. The Tribunal found no express contract running alongside those roles. It did not accept that the board had agreed in November 2022 to pay him a deferred rate of £115 per day, noting the absence of supporting minutes or other documents, the lack of agreed terms about payment, his limited recording of hours, the absence of invoices or follow-up requests, and the fact that his February 2025 resignation did not mention outstanding pay.
The Tribunal found that Mr Anbouche's activities were explicable by his roles as shareholder and director. Tasks were divided among the shareholders and directors according to availability; he could decline work without disciplinary consequences, and his weekday availability depended on obtaining time off from his separate full-time employment. The provision of brewing equipment, his registration as Head Brewer, his work at events and alongside the brewer employed in May 2024, and his participation in business decisions did not establish a separate contractual relationship.
Applying the requirement that an implied contract must be necessary, the Tribunal found no intention to create legal relations beyond the claimant's shareholder and director capacities and no necessity to imply a contract from the parties' conduct. It reached that conclusion for the entire period from the company's formation in 2019 until Mr Anbouche resigned his directorship in February 2025. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claim was pleaded as unfair constructive dismissal and dismissed because the claimant was not an employee within s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant confirmed that the allegations in his further particulars included direct race discrimination. The claim was dismissed because he was not within the employment definition in s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claimant confirmed that the allegations in his further particulars included direct religion or belief discrimination. The claim was dismissed because he was not within the employment definition in s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010
- Catt v English Table Tennis Association Limited [2022] EAT 125
- Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44
- Tod v Swim Wales [2018] EWHC 665 QB
- necessity test for implying a contract
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.