Case 1805825/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Halliwell v F & H Coffee Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805825/2020
- Decision date
- 7 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Halliwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by F & H Coffee Ltd as manager of its Leeds outlet under a written contract, and the tribunal accepted that his wages were often paid late or only in part. After the respondent closed the Leeds branch in March 2020, it told staff they were on unpaid leave and then wrote on 6 April 2020 confirming that staff were furloughed backdated to 18 March 2020. The tribunal found that the claimant agreed that furlough variation, and that later difficulties between the respondent and HMRC did not undo the contractual variation between employer and employee.
The claimant withdrew his unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims after acknowledging that he did not have sufficient service for them. The tribunal therefore dismissed those claims upon withdrawal and did not determine them on the merits. It also found no basis for any award relating to National Insurance, tax or pension accounting issues, beyond noting the claimant’s concerns about the respondent’s obligations to HMRC and the pension scheme.
On remedy, the tribunal found a breach of contract in relation to notice and awarded £480.64 gross, and a further £37.00 for unreimbursed expenses. It also upheld the claim for unlawful deductions from wages, identifying unpaid holiday pay accrued by 18 March 2020, unpaid wages then outstanding, holiday pay/accrued leave due at termination on 24 June 2020, and unpaid furlough wages for April to May 2020. Those unlawful deduction elements totalled £4,447.25 gross. The combined financial awards therefore came to £4,964.89 gross.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant withdrew this claim after acknowledging he did not have sufficient service; the tribunal therefore dismissed it upon withdrawal and made no merits finding. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant withdrew this claim after acknowledging he did not have sufficient service; the tribunal therefore dismissed it upon withdrawal and made no merits finding. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract by failing to give the one week's notice due under the contract and awarded damages of £480.64 gross. | Upheld | — | £481 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to reimburse £37.00 of expenses incurred by the claimant on the respondent's behalf. | Upheld | — | £37 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unlawful deductions in respect of outstanding holiday pay accrued by 18 March 2020 (£941.38 gross), outstanding wages as at 18 March 2020 (£1,283.70 gross), holiday pay/compensation for accrued paid annual leave at termination on 24 June 2020 (£520.79 gross), and outstanding furlough wages for April to May 2020 (£1,701.38 gross), making £4,447.25 gross in total. It made no award under s.24(2) ERA 1996 and did not award the NIC/tax-related sums sought from the respondent's accounting to HMRC. | Upheld |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,965
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- balance of probabilities
- Employment Rights Act 1996 ss. 13, 14, 23 and 24
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regs. 13 to 14 and 30
- Rule 2 overriding objective
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.