Case 1404075/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Michael Meads v Moki Agency Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404075/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Halliday
- Panel members
- Ms Barratt, Ms Mitchell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Michael Meads
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Exeter by CVP on 16, 17 and 18 September 2024 before Employment Judge Halliday with Ms Barratt and Ms Mitchell, considered Mr Meads' complaints against Moki Agency Limited. The tribunal found that the complaints of automatic unfair dismissal under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordinary unfair dismissal under section 94 were not well-founded, and the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.
The complaint of breach of contract in respect of notice pay was well-founded, and the respondent was ordered to pay £1,125 in damages, calculated on gross pay to reflect the possibility that the sum would be taxable as Post Employment Notice Pay. The claim for holiday pay was also well-founded, the tribunal finding the respondent had failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, with an award of £1,440.
The tribunal further found that at the time proceedings were begun the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. It considered it just and equitable to make an award of four weeks' gross pay under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, totalling £1,500.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaints of automatic unfair dismissal under s.100 ERA 1996 and unfair dismissal under s.94 ERA 1996 were not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim well-founded; £1,125 awarded as damages, calculated on gross pay to reflect possible Post Employment Notice Pay tax liability. | Upheld | — | £1,125 |
| Holiday pay | Respondent failed to pay in accordance with regulations 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,440 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; award of four weeks' gross pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £1,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,065
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.