Cases2402832/2023

Claimant v NKT HVC Ltd

1 March 2025Before Employment Judge Elizabeth C OrdLiverpoolin person

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

This preliminary hearing determined only that the claimant had employee status and two years' continuous service. The substantive unfair dismissal claim has not yet been determined on its merits.

Harassmentnot determined

This preliminary hearing did not determine the substance of the harassment claim. It only resolved the threshold issues of employment status and continuity of service.

Direct Discrimination(age)not determined

This preliminary hearing addressed only employment status and continuity of service. The age discrimination claim on its merits remains to be heard.

Direct Discrimination(disability)not determined

This preliminary hearing did not determine the substantive disability discrimination claim. Only threshold issues of employee status and continuous service were resolved.

Facts

The claimant founded Ventcroft Ltd in 1989 and sold it to the first respondent in January 2022. Despite a consultancy agreement signed in March 2022, he continued working on the shop floor as a toolmaker under the same conditions as before the sale, being paid via PAYE, clocking in, wearing employee high-viz, and reporting to management. The respondent argued he was a self-employed consultant. The claimant was dismissed on 31 October 2022.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant never resigned his employment on completion of the sale and remained an employee throughout. The consultancy agreement did not reflect the reality: the claimant continued working personally, under control, paid via PAYE, with no genuine right of substitution. He had continuous service and the requisite two years to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

Practical note

A written consultancy agreement will not determine employment status if the reality of the working relationship—including payment through PAYE, clocking in, personal service, integration, and reporting lines—demonstrates employee status.

Legal authorities cited

Uber BV v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5Sejpal v Rodericks Dental Ltd [2022] EAT 91Manning v Walker Crips Investment Management Ltd [2023] ICR 1265Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497Pimlico Plumbers Ltd v Smith [2018] ICR 1511Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.230Equality Act 2010 s.83

Case details

Case number
2402832/2023
Decision date
1 March 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
2
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
manufacturing
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Managing Director / Toolmaker

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister