Case 3311749/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Kague v Danbar Solicitors Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311749/2021
- Decision date
- 29 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Brown
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Kague
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge L Brown sat alone in Cambridge and decided that Mr David Kague was not an employee or worker of Danbar Solicitors Limited within the meanings in section 230(1), (2) and (3)(a) and (b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That finding was the basis for the tribunal's jurisdiction decision.
Because Mr Kague was found not to be an employee or worker, the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction to hear his claims for unauthorised deduction from wages or breach of contract. Both claims were dismissed on that basis.
The judgment also recorded that the sum of £500 paid by the claimant under a deposit order made on 29 July 2022 was forfeited and payable to the respondent under rule 39(5) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that Mr Kague was not an employee or worker of Danbar Solicitors Limited within section 230(1), (2) and (3)(a) and (b) ERA 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the wages claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim because Mr Kague was neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 230(1), (2) and (3)(a) and (b) ERA 1996
- rule 39(5) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.