Case 1401257/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Cann and Mr Rimmer v Aquatic Chemicals Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401257/2023
- Decision date
- 15 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdoch Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Cann and Mr Rimmer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claims on 23 August 2023 in the respondent’s absence after the Employment Judge checked service, noted the respondent had not entered a response, and found no good reason for the non-attendance. Both claimants represented themselves and gave sworn evidence, with their ET1 forms treated as evidence in chief. The second claimant confirmed that he was no longer pursuing a severance pay claim.
For Mr Cann, the tribunal accepted that he was employed on a gross wage of £2,000 per month and worked from 1 December 2022 to 8 December 2022, but was not paid for that period. The tribunal found the failure to pay was not authorised by statute, contract, or prior written consent, and upheld the unlawful deduction from wages complaint, awarding £646 gross. It also found that the respondent had asked him to extend a car hire arrangement for a second week, agreed to sort out payment, and then failed to do so while he was still employed. Because Mr Cann later paid the hire cost himself on 20 December 2022, the tribunal found a breach of contract and awarded £270 gross.
The tribunal further accepted Mr Cann’s evidence that the respondent orally agreed on the morning of 8 December 2022 to pay notice pay from 9 December 2022 to 31 December 2022. It found a breach of contract in relation to that notice period and awarded £1,354 gross, calculated as one month’s gross pay of £2,000 less the £646 already awarded for 1 to 8 December 2022.
For Mr Rimmer, the tribunal accepted that he had received payslips showing statutory sick pay figures of £538 for December 2022, £538 for January 2023, £508 for February 2023, £552 for March 2023 and £161 for April 2023, but his bank statements showed no corresponding payments. He accepted the respondent’s figures as correct, and the tribunal found the failure to pay was not authorised by statute, contract, or agreement. It therefore upheld the unlawful deduction from wages complaint and awarded £2,297 net, being the sum of the unpaid amounts on the payslips.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant Mr Cann: unpaid wages for 1 December 2022 to 8 December 2022; awarded gross sum of £646. | Upheld | — | £646 |
| Breach of contract | First claimant Mr Cann: unpaid car hire expense; awarded gross sum of £270. | Upheld | — | £270 |
| Breach of contract | First claimant Mr Cann: unpaid notice pay for 9 December 2022 to 31 December 2022; awarded gross sum of £1,354, calculated as monthly pay of £2,000 less £646 already awarded for 1-8 December 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,354 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Second claimant Mr Rimmer: unpaid statutory sick pay for December 2022 to April 2023; awarded net sum of £2,297. | Upheld | — | £2,297 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,567
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.27(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
- rule 2 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules
- rule 21 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules
- rule 70 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules
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.