Case 1602998/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Thickett v Mr A Evans T/A Glazeit — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602998/2023
- Decision date
- 30 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Thickett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge R Brace, sitting alone at Cardiff by CVP on 25 April 2024, heard the Claimant in person; the Respondent did not attend and had not properly submitted an ET3. The judge found the Claimant was an employee of the Respondent from 13 May 2022 to 24 October 2023, working as a fitter installing glass balustrades for an agreed net weekly wage of £500, with the Respondent agreeing to account to HMRC for tax and National Insurance. Applying the Ready Mixed Concrete test (as confirmed in Autoclenz v Belcher), the judge concluded mutuality of obligation and personal service were established.
The Claimant's principal concern was the Respondent's alleged failure to account to HMRC for approximately £9,728 of PAYE and NIC, and a failure to make employer pension contributions and provide payslips. The judge concluded that statutory deductions for PAYE and NIC fell within 'deductions' under s.13(3) ERA 1996 and were not 'wages properly payable' to the Claimant under s.27(1) ERA 1996, and that employer pension contributions paid to a third-party provider were likewise not sums payable to the worker. Those complaints were accordingly not well-founded and were dismissed.
The Claimant withdrew his complaints regarding approximately three days' unpaid wages and accrued holiday pay, and those were dismissed on withdrawal. The judge made a declaration that the Respondent had failed throughout the employment to provide written itemised pay statements as required by s.8 ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of tax, national insurance and (employer) pension contributions held not well-founded and dismissed. Tribunal concluded statutory deductions (PAYE/NIC) and employer pension contributions were not 'wages properly payable' to the worker under s.13(3) and s.27(1) ERA 1996. Claimant referenced approximately £9,728 of unpaid tax/NIC but had suffered no personal loss. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of non-payment of wages (approximately three days' work) dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaint in respect of unpaid accrued holiday pay dismissed on withdrawal by the Claimant despite being informed the Tribunal had jurisdiction. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Declaration under s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the Respondent failed to give the Claimant written itemised pay statements for the period 13 May 2022 to 24 October 2023. The §4.4 taxonomy has no specific 'itemised pay statements' category, so classified as 'other'. No monetary award attached to this declaration. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.14 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 2 QB 497
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41
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.