Case 2401283/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Wild v The Recruitment Shed Limited t/a Challenge trg — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401283/2020
- Decision date
- 20 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Wild
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr R Wild, brought an unlawful deduction of wages claim and a breach of contract claim against The Recruitment Shed Limited t/a Challenge trg. At the hearing on 9 October 2020 before Employment Judge Shotter sitting alone, the unlawful deduction of wages claim was recorded as dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant following settlement between the parties.
The tribunal then addressed the breach of contract claim. It found that Mr Wild was not an employee of the respondent. On that basis, and by reference to section 3 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, the tribunal held that it did not have contractual jurisdiction because the claim did not arise on termination of employment. The breach of contract claim was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the unlawful deduction of wages claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant following settlement between the parties. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent, and therefore the breach of contract claim did not fall within the tribunal's contractual jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.3 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Article 3 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.