Case 1301762/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Harding (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1301762/2023
- Decision date
- 13 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr S Harding (Counsel) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed both the unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract claims. It found that the respondent had advertised an Events Caretaker and General Assistant role with a salary range of £18,426 to £18,795, but the only contract offered to and worked by the claimant was a casual worker agreement sent by Ms Field on 4 October 2021. The judge accepted that the claimant was disappointed that he had not been offered the permanent role he had applied for, but found no evidence of any formal offer or acceptance of a permanent contract, and therefore no permanent employment relationship was created.
On the wages claim, the tribunal rejected the contention that the claimant had been promised the advertised permanent salary. It held that the claimant was only offered and accepted casual work, and that no unlawful deduction from wages had been shown. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's claim for payment for use of his own equipment did not succeed because there was no agreement to pay for that, and in any event payments in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out employment are excluded from wages by s.27(2)(b) ERA 1996.
On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee and therefore the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. The judge also said that, even if jurisdiction existed, the claim would have failed because there was no evidence of any agreement that the respondent would pay the claimant for using his own equipment. The judgment recorded that the claimant worked on a casual basis until around July 2022 and that, when asked in 2023, he was told he could remain as a casual member of staff but there would be no guarantee of hours.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had only been offered and worked under a casual worker agreement, not a permanent contract at the advertised salary. It also found no agreement that the respondent would pay for use of the claimant's own equipment, and expenses in any event are excluded from wages under s.27(2)(b) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee for the purposes of its breach of contract jurisdiction. It also found no evidence of an agreement that the respondent would pay the claimant for use of his own equipment, so the claim would have failed in any event. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.27(2)(b) ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunal’s Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- James Russell Gray v Douglas Simpson Smith [2022] EWHC 1153 (Ch)
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.
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.