Case 1403953/2020 · Employment Tribunal

- IN PERSON FOR THE v - Mr M Parker (solicitor) — 2021

Case reference: 1403953/2020
Decision date: 6 December 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cadney Date

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

- IN PERSON FOR THE

Respondent

- Mr M Parker (solicitor)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr G Tighe and Mrs L Tighe were employed by Kasteel Collection Ltd in roles involving the hotel and the adjoining cottage known as The Cottage. Their contracts provided for monthly remuneration of 1,400 each, with 700 deducted from each wage as rent, or alternatively treated the accommodation value as part of remuneration. No separate tenancy agreement was provided. The tribunal treated the accommodation offset and NMW arguments as one unlawful deduction issue and found that the cottage was living accommodation provided in connection with the employment within the meaning of the National Minimum Wage Regulations. Because the deductions exceeded the permitted accommodation offset, the amounts above the statutory limit had to be taken into account for NMW purposes, so the unlawful deduction claim succeeded. The tribunal left the exact calculation to a remedy hearing because there were unresolved questions about the correct hourly rate and the accommodation deduction figure.

On pension, the tribunal accepted that the claimants were contractually entitled to be automatically enrolled in the NEST pension scheme and that this had not happened. It held that the point could not be pursued as an unlawful deduction from wages because pension contributions are not wages for the purposes of s27(2)(c) ERA 1996, but the omission was a breach of contract. Remedy was again deferred.

The dismissal claim was advanced under s104(1)(b) ERA 1996 on the basis that the claimants had been dismissed after asserting a statutory right to the national minimum wage. The tribunal accepted Mr Tighe's account that the words used on 7 July 2020 were, on their face, an unambiguous dismissal and that the assertion of the statutory right had been made in good faith. However, it found that the later meeting on 4 August 2020 resulted in agreement that 4 August would be the last day of employment. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that any dismissal on 7 July had been impliedly withdrawn and that the employment ended by agreement on 4 August 2020, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal upheld the accommodation-offset unlawful deduction claim. It found the cottage was living accommodation provided in connection with the employment, so deductions above the permitted NMW accommodation offset had to be taken into account when assessing pay. Quantum was left for a remedy hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The tribunal upheld the pension claim as a breach of contract. It found it was not properly a wages deduction claim because pension contributions are not wages for ERA 1996 purposes, but accepted that the respondent had failed to make the automatic-enrolment pension payments into NEST.	Upheld	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The claim was brought as automatic unfair dismissal under s104(1)(b) ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the words spoken on 7 July 2020 amounted to an unambiguous dismissal, but found that the later agreement that 4 August 2020 would be the last day of employment meant the dismissal had been impliedly withdrawn and the employment ended by agreement, so the claim failed.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.