Case 2202099/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Baterica v Syft Online Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202099/2021
- Decision date
- 11 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hopton Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Baterica
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Baterica said he was an agency worker, and told the tribunal he was on a zero-hours basis. He said the case concerned furlough pay he believed the respondent had promised to pay, and he explained at the hearing that his complaint was about a contractual promise said to have been made in November 2020 for payment on 11 December 2020. He also said he felt misled. The tribunal considered whether the claim might instead be a deduction from wages complaint under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but the claimant made clear that he was pursuing breach of contract and misrepresentation claims.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear a misrepresentation claim. It also held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract complaint because the claimant was not an employee and had not been dismissed, and so was not eligible to bring such a claim under section 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The complaint of breach of contract was dismissed, and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract complaint because the claimant was not an employee and had not been dismissed, so he was not eligible to bring that claim under section 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant said the case also concerned misrepresentation arising from an alleged promise about furlough pay. The tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction to hear a misrepresentation claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.