Case 1600676/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Tyler First v Oakvale Pine Ltd Second Respondent: Mr William John Pywell — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600676/2022
- Decision date
- 6 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Tyler First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had managed a Pine furniture shop in Swansea since August 1992. The tribunal found that after the business was sold after April 2019 to Mr William John Pywell, the claimant continued in the same role, was paid £372 weekly into his bank account, but was not given a contract, amended employment paperwork, or payslips. It accepted that wage payments became intermittent and that the claimant was last paid at the end of March 2022.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that on 31 May 2022 he arrived to find the shop locked and closed. It noted that he tried to contact Mr Pywell, who had blocked him, and that neither respondent filed a response or attended. Because the claimant had never been given proper documentation identifying his employer, the tribunal held that liability should fall jointly on Oakvale Pine Ltd and Mr Pywell.
The tribunal upheld the unpaid wages claim, the breach of contract claim for notice pay, the redundancy payment claim, and the holiday pay claim. It awarded 8 weeks' unpaid wages at £372 per week, 12 weeks' notice pay under s.86(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996, redundancy pay of £9,300 based on 25 weeks' pay, and holiday pay of £2,678.40. For holiday pay, it found that the claimant had only ever been paid for two weeks' leave per year, fixed the leave year from 1 August under Regulation 3(b)(i) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and applied the two-year limit in s.23(4A) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal said all awards were made gross because the tax position was uncertain in the absence of payslips. It also found that the claimant was 51 when made redundant and that he had 20 years' service, including periods protected by the TUPE Regulations to preserve continuity.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | 8 weeks' unpaid wages for April and May 2022 at £372 per week; awarded gross; joint and several liability found against both respondents. | Upheld | — | £2,976 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded at 12 weeks' pay of £372 per week under s.86(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996; awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £4,464 |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment awarded on the basis of 25 weeks at £372 per week; the tribunal found the claimant was 51 and had 20 years' service, including periods protected by TUPE continuity. | Upheld | — | £9,300 |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday pay awarded under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal found the claimant had only ever been paid for two weeks' leave per year, limited the award to the two years before presentation under s.23(4A), and calculated 36 days' unpaid leave at £74.40 per day. | Upheld | — | £2,678 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £19,418
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.86(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(4A) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 3(b)(i) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.