Case 1403280/2020 · Employment Tribunal
- IN PERSON FOR THE v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403280/2020
- Decision date
- 25 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- IN PERSON FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Ian Tapping, brought discrete monetary claims which the tribunal heard separately from the later final hearing listed for October 2021. The tribunal identified an underpayment issue arising from a TAHL income uplift after 26 November 2019 and an administrative error in recording the claimant's resignation date, but recorded that both matters had been corrected by payments made in March, April and May 2020. On that basis, the claims for unlawful deductions from salary, failure to make employer pension contributions, and unpaid holiday pay were dismissed because the tribunal accepted that no sums remained outstanding.
The remaining issue concerned the pension projection the claimant had received in January 2020. He said it had been based on contributions only up to 31 January 2020 and on salary figures that did not include the TAHL payment, and he relied on a projected pension figure of £10,114.20 and an estimated annual loss of about £3,600. Shortly before the hearing the respondent produced an updated final retirement quote of £10,247.92, which the claimant saw during the hearing, but he remained unconvinced without seeing the calculation basis.
The Employment Judge expressed a provisional view that there was no obvious basis for an Employment Tribunal claim about a pension fund's calculation of pension entitlement. The judge said such a claim did not appear to be wages within the meaning of section 27(2)(c) ERA 1996 and did not appear to fall within the tribunal's contractual jurisdiction because it was neither outstanding on termination nor arising from termination. The judge also noted that any error by the pension fund trustees would not be a breach by the respondent, and the trustees were not parties to the proceedings.
Because the jurisdiction point and the correct respondent for this part of the case had not previously been raised, the tribunal did not dismiss that claim at the hearing. Instead, it adjourned the issue for 14 days to allow the claimant to make further submissions, with the indication that the claim would be dismissed if no further submissions were made.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions from salary between 26 November 2019 and 13 March 2020; the tribunal recorded that the underpayment had been corrected by later payments and no sums remained outstanding. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deductions arising from failure to make employer pension contributions between 1 January 2020 and 13 March 2020; the tribunal recorded that the appropriate contributions had been made and no sums remained outstanding. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay; the tribunal recorded that the issue had been resolved by later payments and no sums remained outstanding. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerning the pension fund trustees' calculation of the claimant's pension entitlement. The tribunal did not determine the claim finally at this hearing; it adjourned the issue for 14 days for further submissions and indicated it may be dismissed if no further submissions are made. The judge also expressed the provisional view that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Other | — | — |
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.