Case 1804275/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Farr, in person Ms D Flather, in person Mr B Robertson, did not attend v Umbrella Protect & Compare Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804275/2019
- Decision date
- 25 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Licorish Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Farr, in person Ms D Flather, in person Mr B Robertson, did not attend
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claims together and confirmed that the correct identity of the respondent was Umbrella Protect & Compare Limited. Mrs Flather's complaints of unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract were held not to have been validly presented within the relevant time limit, identified as 19 September 2019, one month after the end of early conciliation. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for those complaints to have been presented in time and therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear them, so both were dismissed.
Mr Farr succeeded on his unlawful deductions from wages claim. The tribunal found that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from his wages and ordered payment of £3,397 gross, made up of £2,500 gross pay and £897 commission. The judgment records that Mr Farr is responsible for any income tax or employee national insurance contributions due on those amounts.
Mr Farr also succeeded on breach of contract in relation to notice and on his holiday entitlement. The tribunal found that he had been dismissed in breach of contract as to notice and awarded damages equivalent to one week's gross pay of £576.92. It also found that the respondent had failed to pay his holiday entitlement and ordered payment of 6 days' pay in the sum of £692.30. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment for Mr Farr's successful claims is £4,666.22.
Mr Robertson did not attend the hearing. The tribunal said it was unable to quantify his claim and therefore dismissed it. The extracted text does not specify the underlying legal type of Mr Robertson's claim.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 | Mrs Flather's complaint of unlawful deductions from wages (arrears of pay and holiday pay) was not validly presented within the relevant time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time and held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Mrs Flather's breach of contract complaint (notice pay) was not validly presented within the relevant time limit. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time and held it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from Mr Farr's wages and ordered payment of the gross sum of £3,397, comprising £2,500 gross pay and £897 commission. | Upheld | — | £3,397 |
| Breach of contract | Mr Farr was found to have been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, and was awarded damages equivalent to one week's gross pay of £576.92. | Upheld | — | £577 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent had failed to pay Mr Farr's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of 6 days' pay in the sum of £692.30. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,666
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonably practicable
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.