Case 3312332/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v A Butler (respondent’s operations manager) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312332/2023
- Decision date
- 13 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's company, Iftaza Limited, was engaged by the respondent to carry out work at a client site during September and October 2023. The claimant brought a claim for unpaid wages after the respondent did not pay his company for the final week of work, and he argued that he was an employee of the respondent.
The tribunal found that the work was performed under a contract between Iftaza Limited and the respondent for consultancy services. It found there was no mutuality of obligation, a contractual right of substitution, no control exercised by the respondent over the claimant or his company, and no employment contract.
The tribunal also considered worker status under section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that the claimant was not a worker because he did not undertake to perform work personally and the respondent was a client of the claimant's business. The unpaid wages claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes the claim as unpaid wages and dismisses it because the claimant was found to be neither an employee nor a worker of the respondent, leaving the tribunal without jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- irreducible minimum of control, personal performance and mutuality of obligation
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and ors 2011 ICR 1157, SC
- Uber BV and ors v Aslam and ors 2021 ICR 657, SC
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.