Case 2201886/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Barker v Strix Varia Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2201886/2024
- Decision date
- 12 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shukla
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Barker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Barker, brought claims against Strix Varia Ltd for unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract. The respondent did not appear. Sitting alone, Employment Judge Shukla found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 well-founded for the period 1 February 2023 to 9 October 2023.
On the pay claim, the tribunal found that no salary had been paid during that period, when £165,806 should have been paid in total. It also found that the respondent had instead given the claimant loans of £10,000 in each of February, March, April and May 2023, totalling £40,000. The order was for the gross sum of £165,806 less any sums deductible in relation to the £40,000 loan under clause 20(b) of the Service Agreement.
The tribunal also found that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without the 3-month notice period required by clause 13.1 of the Service Agreement. The notice period would have produced £60,000 gross pay. For that breach, the tribunal awarded £25,000, which it recorded as the maximum amount recoverable in the employment tribunal for breach of contract and as likely taxable as post-employment notice pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found unauthorised deductions from pay for 1 February 2023 to 9 October 2023. It recorded that no salary was paid during that period, when £165,806 should have been paid, and that the respondent instead advanced £10,000 loans in February, March, April and May 2023 totalling £40,000. The ordered payment was the gross sum of £165,806 less any sums deductible in relation to the £40,000 loan under clause 20(b) of the Service Agreement. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimant without the 3-month notice period required by clause 13.1 of the Service Agreement. It noted that the notice period would have attracted £60,000 gross pay, and awarded £25,000, described as the maximum amount that can be awarded for breach of contract and likely taxable as post-employment notice pay. | Upheld | — | £25,000 |
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.