Miss E L George v Norwich Plastics Ltd (in Liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade: 3311049/2023
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3311049/2023
Between
Miss E L GeorgeClaimantNorwich Plastics Ltd (in Liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business and TradeRespondent
Before
Employment Judge PostleNot represented for claimantDate 12 June 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim was held back until 10:15am, listed for 10am, numerous calls were made on the concourse for the Claimant and there was no response.[2]The Claimant’s claims are therefore dismissed as no longer actively pursued.
REASONS
Background
[1]Although Notice of the Hearing for the Claimant’s claim was sent out to the Claimant well in advance of the Hearing, correctly addressed and acknowledged by the Claimant, she misunderstood the need to attend the Hearing.[2]What she produces today is an email to the Tribunal of 2 September 2024 providing what she says was her representations.[3]Giving the Claimant the benefit of the doubt, bearing in mind she is a litigant in person and the misunderstanding of the requirement to attend, it is appropriate in the interests of justice to reconsider and revoke the previous Judgment dismissing her claims. Approved by:[1]The Claimant is pursuing payments from the National Insurance Fund under the provisions of Section 166 and / or 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, namely for a redundancy payment and holiday pay.[2]Section 166 of the 1996 Act allows the Secretary of State to make certain payments from the Fund subject to sections 167 and 168 of the Act.
Evidence
[3]In today’s Hearing we heard oral evidence from the Claimant.[4]The Tribunal also had the benefit of a Bundle of documents consisting of 131 pages.[5]The Tribunal also had the benefit of the Respondent’s detailed and helpful written submissions.
The Facts
[6]It is agreed that Norwich Plastics Limited is insolvent within the meaning of Section 166 and 183 of the 1996 Act and entered into Creditors Voluntary Liquidation on 25 April 2023.[7]The Respondents do not accept the Claimant was an employee of the company within the meaning of section 230 of the 1996 Act.[8]The relevant definitions of employer and worker are contained in section 230 of the 1996 Act which provides as follows:- 230. Employees, workers etc.(1) In this Act “employee” means an individual who has entered into or works under (or where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment.(2) In this Act “contract of employment” means a contract of service or apprenticeship, whether express or implied, and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing.(3) …[9]It is also the case section 54 of the National Minimum Wages Act 1998 defines an employee.[10]The First Respondents were incorporated on 15 July 1998 and manufactured plastics. Originally it was a Partnership between the Claimant’s Father and her Uncle and they turned it into a Limited Company. The Claimant’s Father retired around 2011 and the Claimant and her brother effectively bought the company off her Father and Uncle. They retained all the shares thereafter.[11]Unfortunately, around 2017 the Claimant’s brother died and she obtained all the shareholding and became the sole owner of the company.[12]The Claimant accepts she had no written contract of employment. She argues that she worked 40 hours per week and paid herself £750 per week. The Claimant has only produced four payslips for her last months before the company went into liquidation. They do not seem to support £750 per week.[13]The P60s produced, three of them for the last three tax years, again do not equate to what is stated as a salary. In particular £750 per week would be £39,500 and the salary shown on the P60s is £12,408 and £12,408 with the last P60 for the tax year 2023 being £9,695.[14]The Claimant explains this by confirming she paid herself Dividends and certainly paid substantial Dividends in that period.[15]The Claimant tells us that she decided that she would be in receipt of 40 days holiday per year, she granted it herself.[16]In relation to sick pay, the Claimant decided that if she was off sick she would be paid full pay.[17]The Claimant confirmed that she ran the company, made all the decisions, she had no one to answer to, there were no other Directs, no one to supervise her, no one to discipline her and no one could dismiss her.[18]She was in charge of her own destiny.
Conclusions
[19]Firstly, that the Claimant had no contract of is a relevant factor though not a determining factor on its own.[20]The Claimant said she worked 40 hours per week with a fixed wage of £750 per week which would give an annual salary of over £39,000. However, documentary evidence before the Tribunal by way of payslips and bank statements do not support that.[21]Furthermore, the income that the Claimant actually paid herself by way of wages was well under the National Minimum Wage. Clearly as a Director she is entitled to set her own remuneration. If she was an employee she would have to be paid the National Minimum Wage.[22]All of the low figures were confirmed by the P60 documentary evidence available at this Hearing.[23]I repeat, the Claimant stated in evidence and in her questionnaire to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade that she was not subject to any control or guidance, disciplinary procedure and there was no one within the company who could discipline her or dismiss her.[24]The Claimant was in receipt of substantial Dividends which is not consistent with being an employee.[25]There also appeared to be a Director’s Loan outstanding at the time of insolvency, again not consistent with being an employee.[26]All of the above point consistently to the fact that the Claimant was never an employee of the company, she was always the sole Director certainly from 2017 of the company and was in control of her own destiny.[27]Therefore, she is not entitled to a payment out of the National Insurance Fund for a redundancy payment or holiday pay. Approved by: