Case 6028208/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. S. Webster v Secretary of State for Business & Trade — 2026
- Case reference
- 6028208/2025
- Decision date
- 30 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mrs. S. Laurance-Doig, Mr. A. Hayes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. S. Webster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Douse, sitting with Mrs S. Laurance-Doig and Mr A. Hayes, found that Mr S. Webster was not an employee within the meaning of s.230 ERA 1996.
As a result of that employee-status finding, all claims against the Secretary of State for Business and Trade failed and were dismissed. The judgment made no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment does not identify each claim separately; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. The judgment states that all claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The written judgment does not identify each claim separately; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. The judgment states that all claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not identify each claim separately; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. The judgment states that all claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment does not identify each claim separately; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. The judgment states that all claims were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.230 ERA 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.