Case 1801685/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Nicula v Hiwatt Electronics Ltd — 2019

Case reference: 1801685/2019
Decision date: 9 August 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Rostant Appearances
Venue: Sheffield

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Nicula

Respondent

Hiwatt Electronics Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At the preliminary hearing on 7 August 2019 in Sheffield, Employment Judge Rostant found that Mr A Nicula was not employed under a contract of employment, but was engaged by Hiwatt Electronics Ltd as a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims failed and were dismissed.

The tribunal also addressed the wages claim procedurally. Mr Nicula was given permission to amend his claim to add a complaint about failure to pay annual leave, and the unauthorised deduction from wages claim already included in the claim form was allowed to proceed. The judgment does not record any final decision on liability or remedy for the wages claim at this stage.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the claimant was not employed under a contract of employment, so the unfair dismissal claim failed at the preliminary hearing.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The breach of contract claim failed because the tribunal found there was no contract of employment.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal granted permission to amend the claim to include failure to pay annual leave and allowed the unauthorised deduction from wages claim already in the claim form to proceed. No final liability finding was made at this hearing.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.