Case 6021392/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Rakewood Contracts Ltd (In creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and The Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021392/2024
- Decision date
- 30 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Sheffield by video on 30 June 2025 before Employment Judge Brain. The claimant appeared in person. The first respondent did not attend or take part, and the second respondent was represented by Mr P Soni. By consent, time for the second respondent's notice of appearance was extended until 18 June 2025.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of Rakewood Contracts Ltd within section 230(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, was not an employee for the purposes of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, and was not a worker within section 230(3) of the 1996 Act and regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. On that basis, the claims against the first respondent for a redundancy payment, payment in lieu of notice, and accrued but untaken holiday pay failed and were dismissed.
Because of the same employment-status findings, the claims against the second respondent brought pursuant to Parts XI and XII of the Employment Rights Act 1996 also failed and were dismissed. The judgment records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for a redundancy payment against the first respondent failed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within section 230(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for payment in lieu of notice against the first respondent failed on the same employment-status finding. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay against the first respondent failed because the claimant was not a worker within section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claims against the second respondent brought pursuant to Parts XI and XII of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were dismissed because of the finding that the claimant was not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 230(1) and (2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 2(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- Parts XI and XII 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.
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.