Claimant v Waterloo Quay Properties Limited (In Administration)
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant failed to demonstrate he was an employee of the company. He was a 40% shareholder and director whose remuneration arrangements (taking minimal 'salary' through PAYE at tax threshold with balance from director's loan repayments) were inconsistent with employment status. The way he was paid was similar to a partner taking drawings, not an employee receiving salary.
The claim for arrears of wages for May and June 2023 failed because the tribunal found the claimant was not an employee. The payments shown in accounts and payslips were inconsistent with the claimed salary of £75,600, and there was no clear agreement about when or how unpaid salary would be recovered.
The claimant withdrew the notice pay claim during the hearing, accepting that he had been engaged by the administrators after dismissal and paid for work done, which satisfied any notice entitlement.
Facts
The claimant was a 40% shareholder and director of a property company from 1993 until it went into administration in July 2023. He claimed to be an employee entitled to redundancy pay and arrears. From 2018, following financial difficulties caused by the oil price crash, he agreed to receive only £12,000 p.a. as 'salary' through PAYE (around the tax threshold) with the balance of his claimed £75,600 remuneration paid as repayments from his director's loan account. The company did not issue written terms until August 2022. No board minutes recorded his employment status or the remuneration arrangements.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee. His remuneration arrangements were inconsistent with employment status: taking minimal amounts through PAYE with the balance from director's loan repayments resembled a partner taking drawings, not an employee receiving salary. The accounts showed inconsistent figures for director's remuneration over the years. There was no contemporaneous documentation (board minutes, earlier contracts) supporting his claim to have been an employee throughout. The late-issued 2022 contract did not reflect the actual payment arrangements and could not retrospectively create employment status.
Practical note
A director-shareholder claiming employment status must demonstrate payment arrangements consistent with employment: taking minimal PAYE salary at the tax threshold with the balance from director's loan repayments points strongly away from employee status, regardless of a belatedly-issued written contract.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4105410/2023
- Decision date
- 24 April 2024
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Director and shareholder
- Salary band
- £60,000–£80,000
- Service
- 30 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No