Case 1304800/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Gent v Wedgmoor Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1304800/2021
- Decision date
- 28 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Gent
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Gent was employed as a director of Wedgmoor Limited from 1 April 2019 until 30 July 2021. He resigned by email on 7 July 2021 and worked on until 30 July 2021. The tribunal treated the case as one about outstanding sums on termination and whether itemised payslips had been provided, and it rejected any broader dispute about the circumstances of the resignation.
The holiday pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found that the holiday year ran from January to December, accepted the claimant's evidence that he had carried forward 22 days from the previous holiday year, and concluded that at termination he had 16.67 days' untaken leave. On a salary of £45,000, with a weekly rate of £865.38, that equated to 3.3 weeks' pay and an award of £2,855.75 gross.
The notice pay claim failed because this was not a dismissal case: the claimant resigned and then worked until 30 July 2021, which satisfied the one-week notice period in his contract. The tribunal also rejected the claim that the respondent had failed to provide payslips in the first months of employment, accepting the respondent's evidence that payslips were placed in a tray in the office and were available to the claimant. It did, however, declare that the July 2021 payslip had not been provided at or before payment because it was emailed only on 24 August 2021. The tribunal declined to make any monetary award for that failure, noting that the late provision was not deliberate and that a financial order would be disproportionate.
The national insurance claim failed because the tribunal found that any such contributions were payable to HMRC rather than to the claimant, and the claimant had not shown any precise shortfall. The profit share claim also failed: the tribunal accepted that there had been verbal discussions about a 20% share in Wedgmoor Automation Ltd's profits, but found that company never traded, was dormant, and was not a party to the proceedings. To the extent the claimant sought compensation for alleged unsafe working conditions, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to determine a personal injury-type claim and dismissed that aspect.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted that 22 days of leave had been carried forward from the previous holiday year and found that, on termination on 30 July 2021, 16.67 days of leave remained untaken. It awarded 3.3 weeks' holiday pay at the claimant's weekly rate of £865.38. | Upheld | — | £2,856 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant resigned and worked until 30 July 2021, so he worked the notice period he agreed with the respondent. The tribunal found no unpaid notice pay was shown. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal rejected the complaint about the first few months' payslips because it accepted they were placed in the office tray for collection, but it declared that the July 2021 itemised payslip was not provided at or before payment. No monetary award was made under section 12 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant was concerned about national insurance contributions allegedly not being made at the correct level, but the tribunal found such contributions are payable to HMRC rather than to the worker and that the claimant had not proved any specific shortfall in any event. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal accepted there had been verbal discussions about a profit share arrangement, but found it was tied to Wedgmoor Automation Ltd, which never traded and was not a party to the proceedings. It therefore dismissed the profit share claim. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,856
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- Regulations 13 and 13A WTR 1998
- Regulation 14 WTR 1998
- Regulation 15A WTR 1998
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 27 ERA 1996
- section 8 ERA 1996
- sections 11(4) and 12 ERA 1996
- section 86 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Jackson v Invicta Plastics Limited
- Enable Care and Home Support Ltd v Pearson
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.