Case 2406912/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Aniagolu v World Class Security Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2406912/2024
- Decision date
- 7 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Cowen REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Aniagolu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant claimed unlawful deduction from wages for work undertaken between 10 July 2024 and 1 August 2024. The parties agreed that he had worked the shifts claimed and that wages of £1,690 had been incurred, but the respondent disputed that he was an employee or worker entitled to bring the claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant was free to accept or refuse shifts, that others could undertake work in his place subject to limited conditions, and that the respondent did not exercise the level of control needed for a contract of service. It also found there was no undertaking of personal performance sufficient to make him a worker under section 230(3)(b) ERA 1996.
The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was not an employee or worker for section 230 ERA 1996 purposes, so he could not bring an unlawful deduction from wages claim. The claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The parties agreed that wages of £1,690 had been incurred, but the claim was dismissed because the claimant was found not to be an employee or worker for section 230 ERA 1996 purposes. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Uber BV and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5
- Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
- s.230(3)(b) ERA 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.