Case 2203496/2019 · Employment Tribunal
P Scarratt v Cogent Credit Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203496/2019
- Decision date
- 7 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Employment Judge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
P Scarratt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningProceeding in the respondent's absence under rule 47, the tribunal heard the claimant's evidence and accepted it where it was not challenged. The case concerned wrongful dismissal, unpaid holiday pay and the respondent's failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions under s.1 ERA 1996.
On dismissal, the tribunal found that the unsigned employment agreement dated 19 October 2018 was not shown to be the claimant's contract and accepted that he was entitled to three months' notice. The respondent's allegations of gross misconduct, poor sales activity and moonlighting were not made out on the evidence, and the immediate dismissal email of 18 April 2019 gave no reason. The claimant was therefore awarded £32,498.96 for three months' notice pay.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the claimant had accrued nine days' leave. It accepted that he was not on annual leave in early January 2019, but found that he took five days during his March 2019 trip to Los Angeles, leaving four days outstanding. It awarded £2,000 for those four days.
The tribunal also found that no section 1 written statement had been provided. Under s.38 Employment Act 2002, it exercised its discretion to award the maximum of four weeks' pay at the statutory rate of £525, totalling £2,100. The total monetary award was £36,598.96 gross, and the respondent was directed to account to HMRC for tax and National Insurance on the gross pay element.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to three months' notice and that the respondent had not justified summary dismissal. The alleged October 2018 written agreement was not shown to be the relevant contract. | Upheld | — | £32,499 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had accrued nine days' holiday, rejected the respondent's case that all of it had been taken, and held that four days remained unpaid. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions under s.1 ERA 1996. The tribunal made a s.38 Employment Act 2002 award of four weeks' pay at the statutory rate. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £36,599
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2013
- rule 2 Overriding Objective
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.