Case 1400902/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr R Henry, professional representative — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400902/2020
- Decision date
- 9 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by video link on 25 November 2020 before Employment Judge Rayner. The tribunal found that Mr Mathew McInnes did not have a contract of employment with Xebra Accounting IHC Limited.
On that basis, the claimant's claims for arrears of pay and other payments were dismissed. The written record does not identify any separate monetary award, nor does it set out any remedy calculation because no relief was awarded.
The published decision is brief and does not record any legal test beyond the finding that there was no contract of employment between the parties. It also does not record any separate findings on a lay panel, consistent with a judge-alone hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant did not have a contract of employment with the respondent and that the claims for arrears of pay and other payments were dismissed. The record does not separate a distinct monetary finding for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claimant did not have a contract of employment with the respondent and that the claims for arrears of pay and other payments were dismissed. The record does not separate a distinct monetary finding for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.