Mr M Pigott v UBI Limited — 2020

Mr Pigott was appointed head of sales on 2 October 2017 and dismissed on 11 July 2019. He had worked for the respondent for less than two years. His contract provided for two months' notice and contained a payment in lieu of notice clause at clause 17. The tribunal noted that the respondent elected to use the PILON clause rather than require him to work his notice.

The tribunal found that Mr Pigott received full pay for July 2019, a full month's pay for August 2019, and a final payment on 16 September 2019 of £1,846.15. That final payment reflected the eight working days remaining in September after weekends were discounted. The tribunal also noted that, if the payment had been calculated without discounting weekends, the figure would have been £1,833.33. On the tribunal's findings, he received two months' full pay from the dismissal date and therefore all notice pay to which he was entitled.

Because the contractual notice entitlement had been paid in full, the tribunal held that there were no actionable losses and the wrongful dismissal/dismissal in breach of contract claim failed. It also recorded that the wage slips were confusing because they did not clearly distinguish basic pay from PILON, and that this confusion may have affected the claimant's understanding of what he had been paid.

The respondent's application for costs was refused. The tribunal considered that the claim had arguable prospects because of the confusing wage slips and the claimant's apparent understanding that notice had not been paid in full. It also took account of Mr Pigott's limited means and current income.