Case 1309392/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Andrew Parry Darren Richardson v Muller UK & Ireland Group LLP Midlands West Employment Tribunal — 2025
- Case reference
- 1309392/2022
- Decision date
- 28 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Andrew Parry Darren Richardson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningTwo HGV drivers employed by Muller UK & Ireland Group LLP brought claims of unlawful deductions from wages under s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The dispute concerned the construction of a 6 July 2022 letter setting out revised driver terms agreed with the recognised trade union, which introduced harmonised hourly rates (£14.00 for LGV C&E, £13.00 for LGV C) and included a commitment that no driver would receive less than a 3.6% uplift. The claimants contended that the 3.6% should have been added to their basic rates of pay on a permanent year-on-year basis; the respondent maintained it was a one-off supplement applicable only to the 2022 pay award to bring affected drivers up to the 3.6% figure following harmonisation.
Applying the contractual construction approach set out in Arnold v Britton and Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank, Employment Judge Gidney held that the negotiated agreement was clear and not ambiguous. The harmonised terms were intended to deliver a 3.6% pay rise to all drivers, with a supplement only where the new rates did not achieve that figure, after which future pay rises would be applied equally across all drivers. The claimants' construction would have created a permanent pay differential rather than removing one.
The tribunal concluded that the claimants had been paid the sums properly payable to them, so no deductions had been made. Both claims were accordingly dismissed and it was unnecessary to determine whether any deductions had been authorised.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | 1st Claimant (Parry) claim under s.13 ERA 1996 dismissed; tribunal found the sums paid were those properly payable. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | 2nd Claimant (Richardson) claim under s.13 ERA 1996 dismissed; tribunal found the sums paid were those properly payable. Although gov.uk listing categories include 'Breach of Contract', the judgment adjudicated only unlawful deductions from wages claims (with contractual construction undertaken as part of that statutory analysis per Agarwal v Cardiff University). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Lucy and ors v British Airways UKEAT/0033/08
- Agarwal v Cardiff University [2019] ICR 433
- Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619
- Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900
- National Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon [2018] EWCA Civ 1390
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.