Case 3302522/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Edenabouhien v Mayvine Brickwork Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302522/2023
- Decision date
- 13 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shrimplin Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Edenabouhien
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Edenabouhien brought a claim against Mayvine Brickwork Ltd for unpaid wages prior to 2 August 2022 under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim was submitted on 13 March 2023, and the tribunal considered the limitation issue under s.23(4) ERA 1996. It found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within three months and that the March 2023 submission was reasonable, so the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim.
After hearing evidence from the claimant and Mr Mauro for the respondent, Employment Judge Shrimplin found as a fact that Mayvine Brickwork Ltd was not the claimant's employer. The tribunal found that the claimant was a self-employed sub-contractor sourced through the Genuis employment agency. Because the respondent was not the claimant's employer, the claim did not fall within s.13 ERA 1996.
The claim for unlawful deduction from wages was therefore dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unpaid wages under s.13 ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted jurisdiction under s.23(4) ERA 1996 because it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim within three months and the March 2023 submission was reasonable, but found the respondent was not the claimant's employer and that the claimant was a self-employed sub-contractor sourced through the Genuis employment agency. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230(4) 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.