Case 2300372/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Nasr v Strong Recruitment Group Heard — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300372/2022
- Decision date
- 16 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Nasr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Z Nasr brought a claim for unpaid wages, pleaded as deductions from wages and, alternatively, as breach of contract, against Strong Recruitment Group. The tribunal found that the claimant’s work as a driver had been assigned by Strong Recruitment Group, but the contract of employment was with We Contract Limited, an umbrella company, and that company was responsible for payment of wages. A contract signed on 28 April 2021 was relied on as evidence of that arrangement.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had entered ACAS early conciliation naming Strong Recruitment Group, but that no separate early conciliation was entered in respect of We Contract Limited. It held that, under section 18A(8) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014, and rule 10(1)(c)(i), the claim against We Contract Limited had been rejected because the required early conciliation number was not present for that prospective respondent.
On the merits of the remaining claim, the tribunal found that Strong Recruitment Group was not the claimant’s employer, was not responsible for payment of his wages, and was not responsible for any underpayment of wages. The judgment therefore dismissed the claimant’s unpaid wages claim against Strong Recruitment Group.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant alleged unpaid wages as deductions from wages. The tribunal found that We Contract Limited, not Strong Recruitment Group, was the entity with whom the claimant contracted and responsible for paying wages, so Strong Recruitment Group was not liable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Pleaded in the alternative to unpaid wages. The tribunal held that there was no subsisting claim against Strong Recruitment Group because the wage contract was with We Contract Limited, and Strong Recruitment Group was not responsible for any underpayment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 18A(8) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Employment Tribunals (Early Conciliation: Exemptions and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2014
- rule 10(1)(c)(i)
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.