Employment Tribunal: Claimants Not Found to Be Employees
📌 In brief
In this case heard at Manchester Employment Tribunal, two individuals who represented themselves in court had their claims dismissed because they were not considered employees by law. This means that under UK employment laws, they did not meet the criteria to be classified as employees and thus could not claim employee rights.
⚖️ Legal holding
A worker is not considered an employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 if they do not meet the statutory definition.
📖 Technical summary
The Employment Judge ruled that neither claimant was an employee of the respondent for employment law purposes.
📜 Headnote Official document
In a hearing before Employment Judge L Cowen at Manchester Employment Tribunal, the claimants' claims were dismissed as they were not found to be employees of the respondent under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The decision was based on the statutory definition of employment status.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Dismissed
Case No: 2402339/25 and 2402340/25
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
First Claimant: [redacted]
[NAME]
First Respondent: [redacted]
[COMPANY] (in creditors voluntary liquidation)
[NAME] Respondent
The Secretary Of State For Business And
Trade
Heard at: Manchester Employment Tribunal
On: 5 March 2026
Before: Employment Judge L Cowen (sitting alone)
Representation
First Claimant: [redacted] Claimant: [redacted]
First Respondent: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
1) The First Claimant was not an employee of the First Respondent for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
2) The [NAME] Claimant was not an employee of the First Respondent for the purposes of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
3) The Claimants’ claims therefore fail and are dismissed.
Case No: 2402339/25 and 2402340/25
Employment Judge L Cowen
Date 12 March 2026
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON Date; 29 April 2026
.....................................................................................
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.
Public access to employment tribunal decisions Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment- tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case. Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings. You can access the Direction and the accompanying Guidance here: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and- resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Employment Claims Dismissed by Employment Judge Lancaster
- Employment Tribunal Home Office Wins Disability Discrimination Case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Claims Due to Time Limit Issues
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected Due to Capability Issues
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects All Claimant's Complaints Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Late Filing Costs Claimant: Unfair & Wrongful Dismissal Claims Rejected
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant does not meet the statutory definition required under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- Claims are dismissed if they do not comply with procedural rules and have no reasonable chance of success.
- An employer is not required to make reasonable adjustments or avoid discriminatory practices without grounds for such claims under applicable statutes.
- A claim must be presented within the applicable time limits set by law to proceed.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal decided that neither of the two individuals were considered employees for legal purposes.
Who was involved?
Two self-represented litigants and a company in liquidation, with the Secretary of State as a second respondent.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the statutory definition of employment status under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was applied to determine employment status.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The central reasoning focused on whether the claimants met the statutory criteria for being classified as employees.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimants, dismissing their claims.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should carefully assess whether they meet the legal definition of an employee before pursuing such claims.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment did not specify particular evidence, but typically employment contracts and working conditions are crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.