Case 3305346/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs O Augustin v Elizabeth Strover — 2020
- Case reference
- 3305346/2020
- Decision date
- 19 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs O Augustin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Rule 21 hearing on 14 April 2021, the respondent did not attend or file a response. Applying the approach in Limoine v Sharma and the statutory worker/employee definitions in section 230 ERA 1996, together with the Ready-Mixed Concrete and Byrne Brothers factors, Employment Judge Quill found that Mrs O Augustin was not an employee of Elizabeth Strover. The judge said the claimant controlled how the work was done, so she was not sufficiently under the respondent's control to be an employee, but she did perform the work personally and was not in business on her own account.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held the claimant was not an employee, so there was no jurisdiction to consider the breach of contract complaint, including the claim for reimbursement of agreed expenditure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant was a limb (b) worker and that the agreed net rate of £100 per day for 11 days was wages for the purposes of section 13 ERA 1996. The expenses of £210.30 were not wages and no award was made for them. | Upheld | — | £1,100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,100
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,100
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 21
- Limoine v Sharma EAT 0094/19
- s.230 ERA 1996
- Ready-Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Byrne Brothers (Formwork) Ltd v Baird and ors
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 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.