Case 3201131/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Anita Kozicz v Zortmund Horvath t/a Nonstopdiag — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201131/2024
- Decision date
- 5 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Searley Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Anita Kozicz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAfter converting the listed final hearing into a public preliminary hearing on the issue of employment status, the Tribunal found that the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant and the respondent had been in a personal relationship and had purchased a home together, from which the respondent ran his appliance and electronics repair business. The claimant said she had been employed as office manager from October 2021 to January 2024; the respondent denied any employment and said she had assisted him on an ad-hoc basis as his partner.
The Tribunal did not accept the documents the claimant relied on (a 'main terms' document and a new starter form) as evidence of a contract of employment, finding on the balance of probabilities that the main terms document was not signed at the time the claimant said it was. Applying the legal presumption that there is no intention to create legal relations in family arrangements, and considering the absence of any consideration paid as a salary or any mutuality of obligation, the Tribunal concluded that no contract of employment or worker's contract existed.
In the absence of jurisdiction, the claims of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages and failure to provide an itemised pay statement were all dismissed in their entirety. PDF was truncated; the dispositive finding is recorded in the available text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction; Tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker within s.230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction; Tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker within s.230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide an itemised pay statement claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction; Tribunal found the claimant was not an employee or worker within s.230 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 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.