Cases4100194/2025

Claimant v Kinch Limited (in Voluntary Liquidation)

23 May 2025Before Employment Judge Mrs M KearnsScotlandremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Redundancy Payfailed

The tribunal concluded that the claimants were not employees within the meaning of section 230 ERA but were instead office holders as directors. They therefore had no entitlement to payments from the National Insurance Fund under sections 166 and 182 ERA.

Breach of Contractfailed

The claimants' claim for notice pay from the National Insurance Fund failed because the tribunal found they were not employees but directors holding office, and thus not entitled to payments under section 182 ERA.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The claim for arrears of pay (one month for September 2024) failed because the tribunal determined the claimants were not employees but office holders, and therefore not entitled to payments from the National Insurance Fund under section 182 ERA.

Holiday Payfailed

The claim for holiday pay from the National Insurance Fund failed because the tribunal found the claimants were not employees within section 230 ERA but directors, and therefore not entitled to payments under section 182 ERA.

Facts

The claimants were directors and shareholders of Kinch Limited, which operated two cafés in Glasgow's West End. The company went into creditors' voluntary liquidation on 17 October 2024. The claimants applied to the Redundancy Payments Service for notice pay, arrears, holiday pay and redundancy payments, producing written contracts of employment. They each received £1,050 gross monthly (well below National Minimum Wage for their ~35 hours per week) plus £500 monthly dividends. They ran the operational side of the business day-to-day, with strategic decisions involving the former director Mr Gilbert Kinch.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claims, finding the claimants were not employees within the meaning of section 230 ERA but were office holders acting in a directorial capacity. Key factors: they were paid below NMW (lawful only for office holders), received dividends, set their own hours and duties, were not under the control of a board, and the written contracts were generic staff templates that did not reflect a genuine director's service agreement or the actual working relationship.

Practical note

Company directors seeking redundancy payments from the National Insurance Fund must prove genuine employee status under section 230 ERA, and payment below National Minimum Wage, receipt of dividends, and lack of control by a board will strongly indicate office holder rather than employee status.

Legal authorities cited

Eaton v Robert Eaton Ltd [1988] ICR 302McMillan v Guest [1942] AC 561Ready-Mixed Concrete (South East) Limited v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497Secretary of State v Neufeld and Howe [2009] EWCA Civ 280

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.230ERA 1996 s.182ERA 1996 s.166

Case details

Case number
4100194/2025
Decision date
23 May 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
hospitality
Represented
No

Employment details

Role
Director and café operator
Salary band
Under £15,000
Service
15 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No