Case 1300206/2024 · Employment Tribunal
MR VIOREL NAKU v K9 Stata Security Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1300206/2024
- Decision date
- 9 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N. Clarke Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR VIOREL NAKU
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal first decided that Mr Naku was a "worker" within section 230(3) ERA 1996, so the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim. It found there was a contract between the parties, that the November 2022 written terms about substitution were not incorporated into the relationship as a whole, that any delegation right was at most very limited, and that Mr Naku was not working as a client or customer of his own business. In reaching that conclusion the tribunal referred to authorities including Uber v Aslam, Autoclenz, Ready Mixed Concrete, Byrne Brothers and Redrow Homes.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Although the ET1 box for redundancy payment had been ticked, the tribunal treated the claim as one for unlawful deductions under section 13 ERA 1996. The claim was dismissed because the claimant did not prove any unpaid deduction from wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- Uber BV v Aslam
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Ready Mixed Concrete
- Byrne Brothers v Baird
- Redrow Homes v Wright
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.