Case 1806785/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Taylor v Runtech North Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806785/2020
- Decision date
- 30 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Taylor brought claims initially said to cover notice pay, holiday pay and a statutory redundancy payment, but by the hearing he confirmed that holiday pay and redundancy pay had been paid and that the only live issue was outstanding notice pay of £2,332.80. The Respondent accepted that this sum had not been paid, but said that it had only agreed to pay in lieu of notice by mistake because the contract did not permit it.
The tribunal found that on 2 November 2020 the Respondent told the Claimant in clear and unambiguous terms that his employment would end on that date and that he would be paid in lieu of his seven-week notice period. It held that the letter of 2 November 2020 contained the essential ingredients of a binding agreement: the Respondent offered to dispense with the requirement to work notice and to pay in lieu, and the Claimant accepted. The tribunal therefore found that the Claimant was contractually entitled to the notice payment.
The tribunal rejected the Respondent's argument that the letter was withdrawn or varied by mistake. It noted that no authority or evidence was provided to show a qualifying mistake, that there was no statutory bar to the Claimant accepting a payment in lieu of notice, and that the Respondent had not shown that the letter was issued by someone without authority, on a misunderstanding of instructions, or from an incorrect template. It also held that the notice could not be unilaterally withdrawn without the Claimant's consent, relying on the common law position and Harris and Russell Ltd v Slingsby.
On the alternative argument under section 91(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal found that the Claimant had not broken his contract: his employment had been varied and terminated on 2 November 2020. If that was wrong and employment instead ended on 18 December 2020, there was still no evidence that the Respondent had rightfully treated any alleged breach as terminating the contract. The claim therefore succeeded and the tribunal ordered payment of the outstanding gross sum of £2,332.80.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal awarded the claimant £2,332.80 gross as outstanding notice pay. It recorded that the claimant was responsible for any income tax and/or national insurance contributions due on the sum. | Upheld | — | £2,333 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,333
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 86 ERA 1996
- section 91(4) ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 article 3
- Harris and Russell Ltd v Slingsby
- Miles v Wakefield MBC
- Sunrise Brokers LLP v Rodgers
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.