Claimant v RJW Retail Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996. He was a 100% shareholder and director with no written contract, no one to report to, complete discretion over when he worked and took holidays, and decided whether to take wages. There was no degree of control by anyone else and no contract of employment either express or implied existed.
Facts
The claimant was the founder and 100% shareholder (later 50% shareholder) of a retail company selling personalised gifts from 2011 to 2024. He had no written employment contract, paid himself irregular wages of £800/month (below minimum wage), decided his own hours and holidays, and used company funds for personal expenses which he later repaid. When the company entered creditors voluntary liquidation in October 2024, he claimed insolvency payments from the Secretary of State, arguing he was an employee.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of section 230 ERA 1996. Despite P60s and furlough during COVID, the absence of any control, lack of written contract, complete autonomy over work and pay, and use of company account for personal matters demonstrated no contract of employment existed. The claim failed.
Practical note
A director-shareholder with complete control over their work, pay and conditions, even if receiving regular salary and P60s, will not be considered an employee without genuine mutuality of obligation and a degree of control.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8002099/2024
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- RJW Retail Ltd
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Director/Shareholder
- Salary band
- Under £15,000
- Service
- 14 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No