Case 6043049/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Soar v 1) Hidden Hearing Limited 2) Demant A/S — 2026
- Case reference
- 6043049/2025
- Decision date
- 9 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Soar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Soar alleged that he remained employed by Hidden Hearing Limited until he was dismissed on 10 September 2025, when the grievance outcome stated that he had not been an employee since 15 March 2024. The tribunal assessed the factual reality and totality of the relationship after 15 March 2024. It found that his May 2023 email was a loose roadmap rather than a concluded agreement for continuing employment and that his work for Hidden Hearing had wound down through his departure from the director role, retirement events, farewells and closure of his Hidden Hearing email account.
The tribunal found that Mr Soar's subsequent China assignments concerned a Demant venture in which Hidden Hearing had no involvement. He arranged the assignments with Mr Beck of Demant according to his availability, was paid only for work performed, and had no obligation to accept work or entitlement to be provided with it. Payment through Hidden Hearing's payroll arose from tax advice intended to avoid Chinese liabilities and did not establish an employment relationship. The tribunal considered the continued provision of a company car, laptop and telephone, and the HR letter of 1 April 2025, but found that these matters did not reflect the practical reality of the relationship.
On the balance of probabilities, the tribunal found that Mr Soar's contract of employment with Hidden Hearing ended by mutual agreement on 15 March 2024. It considered that he was thereafter likely engaged by Demant as a worker during the periods of his China assignments. Because he was not dismissed by Hidden Hearing, the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims were dismissed. The tribunal added that, if dismissal had occurred on 15 March 2024, the claims were out of time and no compelling case had been presented that it was not reasonably practicable to bring them in time.
Mr Soar had not commenced ACAS Early Conciliation against Demant and no exemption applied. Applying section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and Reynolds v Abel Estates Ltd and others, the tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction over the alternative claims against Demant and dismissed them. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim against Hidden Hearing Limited was dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant's employment ended by mutual agreement on 15 March 2024 and that he was not dismissed. Alternatively, any claim based on a dismissal on that date was out of time. The alternative claim against Demant A/S was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because no ACAS Early Conciliation process had been commenced against it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim against Hidden Hearing Limited was dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant's employment ended by mutual agreement on 15 March 2024 and that he was not dismissed; alternatively, the claim was out of time. The alternative claim against Demant A/S was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because no ACAS Early Conciliation process had been commenced against it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996 employee test
- Mutuality of obligation as the irreducible minimum of employment, Carmichael v National Power plc [1999] 4 All ER 879
- Factual reality and totality of the relationship
- Reasonably practicable time-limit test
- s.18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996 ACAS Early Conciliation requirement
- Reynolds v Abel Estates Ltd and others [2025] EWCA Civ 1357
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.