Case 3201719/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Nechita v Epidaurus Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201719/2020
- Decision date
- 18 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Nechita
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a decision sent on 18 February 2021, Employment Judge Russell dealt with a preliminary issue of worker status and jurisdiction after the Respondent argued that Mr Nechita was self-employed and outside the relevant legislation. The judgment also records that at an earlier preliminary hearing on 29 October 2020, the claims for notice pay, unfair dismissal and redundancy payment had been dismissed because the Claimant did not have sufficient continuity of employment.
The Tribunal accepted Mr Nechita's evidence that he first worked a five-and-a-half-hour shift for the Respondent through Brigad on 6 February 2020 and was paid £56.61. It also accepted that, after a conversation with the restaurant manager Katerina, he was offered further work directly as a kitchen porter from 3 March 2020, on shifts from 9.00am to 9.00pm at £8.72 an hour. The Judge found that the Claimant provided his personal bank details and National Insurance number, that no written contract was produced, that no invoices were issued by Petrica Personnel Cleaning Company Limited, and that the Respondent produced no evidence of payment to that company. An email exchange referring to the Claimant as self-employed was treated as consistent with his evidence that any self-employment was only in relation to cleaning services.
On that evidence, the Tribunal found that the kitchen-porter work was performed under a direct oral contract with the Respondent, that the Respondent was not the client or customer of a business carried on by the Claimant, and that he was a worker for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction over the remaining claims, including breach of contract, holiday pay, unauthorised deductions from wages and race discrimination. No monetary remedy was awarded in this decision. The race discrimination complaint was not yet particularised, so the Claimant was ordered to provide further information by 19 March 2021, with a further telephone preliminary hearing to follow; the final hearing was listed for 3, 4 and 5 November 2021.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that this claim was dismissed by Regional Employment Judge Taylor at a preliminary hearing on 29 October 2020 because the Claimant did not have sufficient continuity of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records that this claim was dismissed by Regional Employment Judge Taylor at a preliminary hearing on 29 October 2020 because the Claimant did not have sufficient continuity of employment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim form included a breach of contract complaint. This decision does not make a separate merits finding on that complaint; it decided worker status and jurisdiction over the remaining claims. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal found the Claimant was a worker and that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim, but it did not determine substantive liability in this decision. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found the Claimant was a worker and that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim, but it did not determine substantive liability in this decision. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the race discrimination claim. The claim was not yet set out in detail, and the Claimant was ordered to provide further information. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 2(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.83(2)(a) Equality Act 2010
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 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.