Case 2401510/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Najak v Curtis Law Solicitors Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401510/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Najak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 9 October 2024 before Employment Judge Phil Allen, the tribunal found that Mr S Najak was a worker when engaged by Curtis Law Solicitors Limited within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That finding resolved the status issue in the claimant's favour, but it did not itself result in any award.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages, stating that it was not well-founded. It also dismissed the breach of contract claim as not well-founded. No monetary remedy was recorded in the written judgment.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. As a result, the published record contains only the outcome and the worker-status finding, without detailed written analysis of why each substantive claim failed.
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 was a worker within section 230(3) ERA 1996, but the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was found not well-founded and dismissed. The written record does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning because reasons were given orally. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim for breach of contract was found not well-founded and dismissed. The written record contains no detailed written reasons beyond the operative disposal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.