Case 2202519/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Halloway Churchill v True Trade Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202519/2020
- Decision date
- 20 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hopton Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Halloway Churchill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not file an ET3 response and the tribunal heard the claimant's evidence without cross-examination from the respondent. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had first been engaged under an undated consulting agreement effective from 15 January 2019, and that at a shareholders meeting on 20 May 2019 he was voted in as CEO of True Trade Limited. An email in the bundle referred to a contract being drafted and set out roles including CEO, Head of Compliance and Head of Sales, with base compensation of £15,000 per month.
On status, the tribunal found that the claimant was employed by True Trade Limited under an oral contract backed by some written details, and that he was also a worker. The tribunal relied on the respondent's control over his work, the fact that the respondent paid his income tax and national insurance, the absence of any right to substitution, and the evidence that he worked directly and personally for the respondent rather than for a client or customer.
On the unlawful deduction claim, the tribunal found that the claimant was due £15,000 per month under the contract and that he had been underpaid on some occasions and not paid at all on others. It accepted contemporaneous emails and text messages showing repeated requests for payment and responses from the respondent saying money had been or would be wired. The tribunal rejected the respondent's submission that non-payment was justified by performance concerns, and held that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 ERA 1996, awarding £54,641.38 net.
On the written particulars issue, the tribunal found that no written statement of particulars required by section 1 ERA 1996 had been provided. Because the claimant succeeded in the wages claim, section 38 Employment Act 2002 applied and the tribunal awarded the maximum four weeks' statutory pay, £2,100 gross, on the basis that the failure to provide a statement had continued despite repeated requests.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £54,641 |
| Other | Award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars required by section 1 ERA 1996; tribunal awarded the maximum four weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £56,741
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- Selkent principles
- overriding objective
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.1 ERA 1996
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.