Case 1805729/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A J Finegan v Ainsty Timber Marketing Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1805729/2023
- Decision date
- 12 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A J Finegan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's employment terms had been varied over time from a 2019 contract at £45,000, through later increases to £100,000, and then, from the April/August 2022 arrangement, to £25,000 salary with a £10,000 employer pension contribution, a £750 monthly car allowance, 27 days' holiday plus bank holidays, and 6 months' notice. It rejected the claimant's reliance on a later April 2021 variation document that suggested a longer notice period, finding that document did not reflect any genuine agreement between the parties.
On dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the respondent's dismissal reason was a breakdown of trust and confidence based on the claimant's conduct in relation to the TotalFD claim for £250,000, his refusal to sign the letter of clarification, his opposition to payment of the solicitor's invoice, and his email demanding that his wife be employed on the same terms as Mrs Whamond. It found that Mr Whamond and Mr Dawson genuinely believed the claimant was not acting in the company's best interests, that this amounted to some other substantial reason justifying dismissal of a finance director, and that summary dismissal without prior representations or an appeal was within the band of reasonable responses in the circumstances. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's conduct, taken cumulatively, amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract so the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice. That meant the notice pay breach of contract claim failed as well. The only monetary award was on the unlawful deduction from wages claim: the tribunal found unauthorised deductions for June and July 2023 in relation to pension contributions, car allowance, and one day's holiday, and ordered the respondent to pay £1,918.44 gross. The respondent's director's loan counterclaim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the loan was not a contract connected with employment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed. The tribunal accepted the respondent's reason as a breakdown of trust and confidence arising from the claimant's conduct in the TotalFD/£250,000 dispute and the late-June 2023 emails, and held summary dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed. This was the claimant's notice pay claim; the tribunal found his contractual notice remained 6 months but held he was in cumulative repudiatory breach of contract, so the respondent was entitled to dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld. The award comprised unauthorised deductions from pension contribution, car allowance, and one day's holiday deduction in June and July 2023, assessed as a gross sum of £1,918.44. | Upheld | — | £1,918 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed. This was the respondent's director's loan counterclaim; the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the loan was not a contract connected with employment within the extension order. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,918
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- some other substantial reason
- band of reasonable responses
- repudiatory breach of contract
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, article 4
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
- Leach v Office of Communications
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.