Case 3323562/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v LJR Interiors Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3323562/2019
- Decision date
- 13 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants did not attend the hearing. The tribunal was satisfied that notice of hearing had been sent to them on 26 January 2020 and decided to proceed in their absence under rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. Mr Tones gave evidence on oath for the respondent and confirmed that the response presented on 10 December 2019 was true and correct.
The tribunal found that the claimants were independent self-employed sub-contractors under the CIS scheme. It held that they were not employees or workers within section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore lacked the status required to bring unpaid wages claims in the Employment Tribunal.
The tribunal also found, in any event, that the claimants had been paid all that they were entitled to receive under their contracts. Both claims were therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment concerned claims by Mr A Mezo and Mr R Pop for unpaid wages. The tribunal held that they were not employees or workers within section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996 and therefore did not have the required status to bring claims for unpaid wages before the Employment Tribunal. It also found that, even if they had that status, they had been paid all they were entitled to receive under their contracts. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 230 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.