Case 3320502/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Piecuch v Loughton Contracts plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 3320502/2021
- Decision date
- 27 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Piecuch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 25 November 2022 before Employment Judge Quill sitting alone. It determined two preliminary issues: first, that there was no contract of employment between Mr Piecuch and Loughton Contracts plc; and second, that there was no contract between the parties such that the Claimant was a 'worker' within section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Those findings disposed of the claim in its entirety. The judgment states that, as a result of the preliminary issue decisions, the entire claim was dismissed.
The tribunal did not need to decide the Respondent's application to strike out the claim on grounds said to include abuse of process, unreasonable conduct of the proceedings, and failure to comply with case management orders. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed after the tribunal decided, as a preliminary issue, that there was no contract of employment between the parties. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed after the tribunal decided, as a preliminary issue, that there was no contract between the parties such that the Claimant was a 'worker' within section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 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.