Claimant v Rakewood Contracts Ltd (in creditors' voluntary liquidation)
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the first respondent within the meaning of section 230(1) and (2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. As redundancy payments require employee status, the claim failed.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994, which governs contractual claims. This claim for payment in lieu of notice therefore failed.
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a worker within the definition in section 230(3) of the 1996 Act and regulation 2(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. As holiday pay rights require at minimum worker status, this claim for accrued but untaken holiday pay failed.
Facts
The claimant brought claims against Rakewood Contracts Ltd (in liquidation) for redundancy pay, notice pay, and holiday pay. The first respondent did not attend. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade was joined as second respondent to defend claims under the insolvency provisions. A preliminary hearing was held by video to determine the claimant's employment status.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the first respondent. All claims were dismissed as they required at least worker status (for holiday pay) or employee status (for redundancy and notice pay claims against the Secretary of State).
Practical note
Employment status is a jurisdictional threshold issue: without establishing employee or worker status, claims for statutory employment rights including redundancy payments and holiday pay must fail, even where the employer is insolvent.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6021392/2024
- Decision date
- 30 June 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No