Case 3310425/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C O Carew v Seven Resourcing Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310425/2023
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan Representatives
- Venue
- Watford via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C O Carew
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C O Carew brought claims against Seven Resourcing Limited for unauthorised deduction from wages, unpaid accrued holiday entitlement, breach of contract and unfair dismissal. The hearing took place at Watford via CVP on 8 July 2024 before Employment Judge Skehan. The tribunal recorded that reasons were given orally at the hearing and later issued a written record.
The tribunal found that the claimant was a worker but not an employee of the respondent. On that basis, it held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the breach of contract or unfair dismissal claims. Those claims were therefore dismissed.
The claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and unpaid accrued holiday entitlement were both found not well-founded and dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award or separate remedy, so no compensation was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim described as an unauthorised deduction from wages. The tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim described as unpaid accrued holiday entitlement. The tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was a worker but not an employee, so it had no jurisdiction to consider the breach of contract claim; the claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was a worker but not an employee, so it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim; the claim was dismissed. | 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.