Case 3200455/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Oyelakin v Redactive Publishing Limited Heard: East London Hearing Centre — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200455/2021
- Decision date
- 24 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Oyelakin
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal consolidated case numbers 3200455/2021 and 3201563/2021 and corrected the respondent's name to Redactive Publishing Limited. It also discharged Calcum Rutter from both claims. The claimant did not appear at the hearing, which was held at East London Hearing Centre on 24 January 2022 before Employment Judge Shore.
The substantive claim was brought under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal held that the claim failed because the claimant was neither a worker within section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 nor an employee of the respondent at any time. On that basis, the tribunal said it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissed them in their entirety.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claims under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed because the claimant was neither a worker within section 230(3) nor an employee of the respondent at any time, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.230(3) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.