Case 2601510/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Endredi v HR Essentials Limited — 2022

Case reference: 2601510/2022
Decision date: 28 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Phillips
Venue: Nottingham

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr J Endredi

Respondent

HR Essentials Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Endredi worked as a general operative through the respondent agency for White Meadow Limited between 24 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. The written terms of engagement and booking schedules identified hourly rates of £8.91, later £9.50 when the national living wage uplift applied, and described warehouse operative duties including bagging, goods in, despatch, inspecting, cushion filling, cleaning and tidying. The tribunal found that lifting and manoeuvring furniture fell within those general duties.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment states that the claim for failure to provide written statements of pay was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found the claimant had been paid the correct hourly rates of £8.91 and then £9.50, so there was no unlawful deduction from wages.	Dismissed	—	—
Breach of contract	The tribunal rejected the alternative breach of contract case, finding that the claimant had agreed the hourly rates in his terms of engagement and had been paid precisely the contractual amounts.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.