Case 1401763/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend – written representations For the v Cura Homecare Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401763/2019
- Decision date
- 21 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend – written representations For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge N J Roper in Plymouth on 21 August 2019. Mr Francis Brady had brought claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages against Cura Homecare Ltd. The tribunal noted that the unfair dismissal claim had already been dismissed because he lacked sufficient continuity of service, leaving the unlawful deduction claim as the surviving issue in these proceedings.
The claimant argued that Liquid Friday Ltd had been acting only as a payroll agent and that Cura Homecare Ltd should be liable. The tribunal reviewed a statement from Mr Taffurelli, the employment contract between Mr Brady and Liquid Friday Ltd, pay information, and contracts between Liquid Friday Ltd and Cura Homecare Ltd. It found that Mr Brady was employed by Liquid Friday Ltd, that he was not employed by Cura Homecare Ltd, and that Liquid Friday Ltd paid him as employer.
The tribunal held that an unlawful deduction from wages claim could only be brought against the claimant's employer, so the claim had no reasonable prospect of success against Cura Homecare Ltd and was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a). It also found that the claim had already been compromised by the signed ACAS COT3 agreement dated 16 April 2019, under which Mr Brady accepted £2,000 in full and final settlement of claims arising out of his employment, and that section 203(2)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented further proceedings on that basis.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the surviving unlawful deduction from wages claim could only be brought against the claimant's employer, and found that Mr Brady was employed by Liquid Friday Ltd rather than Cura Homecare Ltd. It also said the claim had already been compromised by the ACAS COT3 agreement for £2,000 and that, on that basis, the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and would be struck out under Rule 37(1)(a). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 203(2)(e) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.