Mr O Dixon v Clive Harrill — 2021

The claimant brought a claim for unauthorised deduction from wages. He said he had applied for a job advertised online, received email communications from someone using the name Clive Harrill, worked from home advertising properties to let, and later submitted an invoice for £800.60 which was not paid. The hearing was before Employment Judge S Moore on 21 January 2022, with both parties appearing in person.

The tribunal found that the emails and employment documents were not authored by the respondent, Mr Clive Harrill, but by a person or persons unknown who had impersonated him and used the details of Property Advertising Services Ltd. It accepted Mr Harrill's evidence that he had never employed the claimant and that neither he nor his company had ever been involved in advertising properties to let on Facebook or otherwise.

The tribunal concluded that both the claimant and the respondent were victims of fraudulent activity and that the contract of employment was unenforceable. It also found that, even if the contract had not been illegal, the claim had been brought against Mr Harrill personally when the employing entity should have been the limited company, so the claim could not have succeeded against this respondent. The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was therefore dismissed and no monetary award was made.