Case 3303834/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs Cheung, Director — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303834/2020
- Decision date
- 3 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a part-time waiter at the respondent's Chinese restaurant from 9 August 2018 until he resigned on 25 January 2020. He said there was an oral contract guaranteeing him work on Thursday, Friday and Saturday each week. The tribunal found instead that the arrangement was informal and casual, with weekly SMS schedules sent on Sundays according to business need, and that there was no guarantee of a minimum amount of work or pay.
On that basis, the tribunal held that there was no overarching contract between the parties. It found that each day's work was a separate contract formed when the respondent offered a shift and the claimant accepted it, and that there was no contractual obligation to offer or pay for days not allocated. The claimant's claim for payment for seven days in December 2019 and January 2020 was therefore dismissed as a breach of contract and/or unlawful deduction from wages claim.
The tribunal also rejected the wrongful dismissal claim because the claimant had resigned and had not been dismissed. It rejected the unfair dismissal claim because he did not have the requisite two years' qualifying service. A complaint under s.11 Employment Rights Act 1996 and/or s.38 Employment Act 2002 about employment particulars was not allowed to proceed because it was not in the claim form and no amendment had been sought. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found there was no overarching contract guaranteeing Thursday, Friday and Saturday work or pay; each engagement arose only when a day of work was offered and accepted. The claim for unpaid days in December 2019 and January 2020 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal rejected the asserted entitlement to be paid for days that were not offered or worked, finding the arrangement was casual and dependent on business need. The deduction claim failed on the same facts as the breach of contract claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant resigned on 25 January 2020 and was not wrongfully dismissed. It held there was no entitlement to damages for wrongful dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal rejected the claim because the claimant did not have the requisite two years' qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.