Elies Play Café/E Zdrava

Case Summary

The claimant brought claims for unpaid wages, notice pay, and holiday pay from his involvement with Elies Play Café between March and July 2025. The respondent contended the claimant was involved in an unpaid consultancy arrangement and was not an employee or worker. The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the claimant was not at any time either an employee or worker, and therefore lacked jurisdiction under sections 13 and 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998.

The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee or worker but was involved in an unpaid consultancy arrangement. The claimant was able to dictate his own schedule, conducted his own separate business at the café, represented himself as an owner rather than an employee, had access to the café bank account, and initially helped with payroll and staff contracts. The evidence showed he was not paid wages for his services to the café, casting doubt on employment status, and he made capital inputs to the business rather than receiving regular employment income.

• •Whether the claimant was an employee or worker
• •Whether there was a genuine contract of employment
• •Nature of the arrangement: unpaid consultancy versus employment
• •Control and autonomy of the claimant
• •Status as shareholder/director versus employee

Case No. 6035208/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Liam Boniface Respondent: Elies Play Café / Erin Zdrava Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal On: Case number: Before: 09 March 2026 6035208 / 2025 Employment Judge M Da Costa (sitting alone) ATTENDANCE AND REPRESENTATION: Claimant: In person, unrepresented, via CVP Respondent: In person, represented by Mr Cowley, via CVP RESERVED JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Complaint of unauthorised deductions of wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 1. The claimant’s claim for unauthorised deductions of wages is not well founded and is dismissed. 2. The claimant was not at any time either an employee or a worker, therefore has no jurisdiction to make a claim pursuant to section 13 of the Act. Complaint of failure to provide minimum notice contrary to section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 3. The claimant’s complaint that he was not provided with the minimum period of notice is not well founded and is dismissed. Case No. 6035208/2025 2 4. The claimant was not at any time working under a contract of employment. Therefore, the right under section 86 of the Act did not accrue. Complaint of non-payment of annual leave accrued, contrary to articles 13, 13A and 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 5. The claimant’s complaint that he was entitled to payment for annual leave accrued but unpaid, is not well founded and is dismissed. 6. The claimant was not at any time either an employee or a worker, therefore has no jurisdiction to make a claim under the Regulations. REASONS Background 7. By an ET1 dated 24 September 2025 the claimant brings a claim for arrears of pay, notice pay and holiday pay. 8. The ET1 alleges that the claimant worked at Elies Play Café between March 2025 and July 2025 “with no contract in excess of the hours” tha…