Case 1405856/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Did Not Attend For the v Mrs Grace Woolford, Commercial Director — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405856/2020
- Decision date
- 16 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did Not Attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by Vector Resourcing Limited as a Recruitment Consultant and later as a Director. His contractual salary was £2,750 gross per month. He resigned during the summer of 2020, gave the required 12 weeks' notice, and the agreed expiry of notice was 30 September 2020. The contract also contained garden leave and restrictive covenant provisions, including clauses preventing competing activity and solicitation of clients while notice was running or during garden leave.
On 21 September 2020 the claimant posted on LinkedIn that after 22 years he had decided to leave Vector and was embracing a new challenge. He also emailed Donna Medway confirming his exit at the end of the month. The respondent treated the LinkedIn post as showing that he had reduced his notice period and wrote that the actual termination date had been 18 September 2020. The tribunal did not accept that analysis. It found that the claimant had not communicated any earlier resignation before 30 September 2020 and had not received income from a third party.
The tribunal also rejected the respondent's contention that the LinkedIn post amounted to solicitation of clients or breach of the garden leave and restraint clauses. It found that the post was only a general statement that his employment would be ending soon and that at some stage he would be involved in a new venture. There was no specific solicitation of any clients and no breach of the contractual restraints proved on the balance of probabilities.
Because the claimant remained entitled to be paid his normal salary for September 2020, the respondent's failure to pay £2,750 was both a breach of contract and an unlawful deduction from wages. Judgment was therefore entered for the claimant in the gross sum of £2,750.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent had no justification for withholding September 2020 salary and that the claim was permitted by article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the failure to pay the claimant's September 2020 salary was an unauthorised deduction contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,750
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- balance of probabilities
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.