Case 2202675/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2202675/2022
- Decision date
- 25 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central by CVP on 23-25 November 2022 before Employment Judge B Beyzade. The tribunal recorded that the claimant brought claims against Mrs J Chatfield and against Regarth Land Company Ltd for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages, and holiday pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998, including a separate breach of contract claim for expenses.
The tribunal dismissed the claims against Mrs J Chatfield under Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It also dismissed the breach of contract claim for expenses under the same rule.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the claimant was not employed by Regarth Land Company Ltd. In consequence, the unfair dismissal claim and the breach of contract claim for notice pay did not succeed. The claim for unlawful deduction from wages (arrears of pay) was found not well-founded, and the annual leave claim under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was also found not well-founded.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 52; the tribunal also found the claimant was not employed by Regarth Land Company Ltd, so the unfair dismissal claim did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for notice pay dismissed; the tribunal found the claimant was not employed by Regarth Land Company Ltd, so the claim did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of pay was found not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for annual leave pursuant to the Working Time Regulations 1998 was found not well-founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for expenses dismissed under Rule 52. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 52 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.