Case 2205829/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. J Puniskis v Mrs M Golden — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205829/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. J Puniskis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place remotely by CVP on 7 December 2020 before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone. The respondent's application for an extension of time to present a response was granted and the late response was accepted in full.
The claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to the days worked was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not record any monetary award on that claim.
The tribunal also found that Ms. J Puniskis was not an employee of Mrs M Golden within the meaning of section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction under section 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 to hear and determine the claimant's breach of contract, described in the judgment as wrongful dismissal, claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages in relation to the days worked was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was not an employee within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore had no jurisdiction under section 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 to hear and determine the breach of contract/wrongful dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 3 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.