Case 1806404/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs G Harris Miss L Harris Miss L Wadsworth Mrs P Shores Mrs S Ayliffe Mrs J Mallory Mrs J Jackson Mrs I Taylor v A.K. Hull Ltd HELD BY CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806404/2020
- Decision date
- 9 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs G Harris Miss L Harris Miss L Wadsworth Mrs P Shores Mrs S Ayliffe Mrs J Mallory Mrs J Jackson Mrs I Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims against the four individual respondents were dismissed by consent before the final hearing, leaving A.K. Hull Ltd as the sole respondent. The final hearing was held remotely and the respondent did not attend. The tribunal was satisfied that notice had been properly sent and that the claimants had provided the respondent with the bundle and witness statements. It accepted the claimants' evidence that they had worked at the Church Street convenience store, that their employment transferred to A.K. Hull Ltd, that they were furloughed from April 2020, and that they were paid 80% of wages only until 1 August 2020.
On the main claim, the tribunal found that no wages were paid from 1 August 2020 to 31 May 2021 even though HMRC had continued to pay CJRS grants to the respondent. It accepted the HMRC records and the claimants' calculations, found the claimants credible, and concluded that the respondent had unlawfully deducted wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996 in the total sum of £60,574.78. The judge also found that Mr Paskar's ET3 response was misleading, that he did not attend to explain what had happened to the grant money, and that the grant had been retained for an improper purpose.
The tribunal addressed annual leave and a separate complaint by Mrs Harris about occupational pension contributions. It recorded accrued holiday entitlements for the 2020 and 2021 leave years, but made no determination on annual leave rights because the contracts had not ended and regulation 14 WTR 1998 did not apply, although carry-over under the COVID amendment regulations was discussed. Mrs Harris's pension contribution claim failed because occupational pension schemes were excluded from TUPE and any section 13 claim was out of time. The tribunal also imposed a £20,000 financial penalty payable to the Secretary of State under section 12A because of aggravating features.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 | Collective claim by all eight claimants for unpaid furlough wages from 1 August 2020 to 31 May 2021. The tribunal found no wages had been paid after 1 August 2020 despite CJRS grants received by the respondent. | Upheld | — | £60,575 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mrs Harris only. Her complaint about non-payment of occupational pension contributions failed because occupational pension schemes were excluded from TUPE and any section 13 ERA 1996 claim was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £60,575
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.12A Employment Tribunals Act
- regulation 10(1) TUPE 1998
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.