MRS H CARTLIDGE v 221b Limited and 3 others — 2023

The tribunal declared that the claimant was an employee of the 1st respondent only. It rejected the case that she was employed by respondents 2 to 4, finding that work she undertook for them, including babysitting and help with renovations, arose from her personal relationship with the 4th respondent and was not undertaken under an arrangement intended to create legal relations. The tribunal also found that payments made by the 4th respondent were made in the context of that relationship and were not regarded by either party as wages for work.

On the bonus dispute, the tribunal found that there was no binding agreement in January 2018 to pay the claimant a £500,000 bonus, or any other specific sum. It accepted that the claimant may have been left with the impression that some unspecified payment or possible loan might be forthcoming later, but it did not accept that a contractual promise was made. The unlawful deduction claim based on the alleged bonus therefore failed. The separate claim for unpaid wages also failed because the claimant did not prove that any outstanding wages were due at termination.

The tribunal held that the claimant did not make a qualifying protected disclosure in the 8 September 2020 solicitor's letter. It found that the letter was a demand for payment in a private bonus dispute, that it did not allege a current or likely future breach of legal obligation in the required sense, and that the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that the disclosure was in the public interest. The automatic unfair dismissal claim therefore failed. However, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the respondents dismissed the claimant summarily without any process or opportunity to explain her position. The tribunal found that a reasonable employer would have heard from the claimant before deciding whether dismissal was justified.

The tribunal nevertheless found that, had a fair process been followed, dismissal on notice or payment in lieu of notice would likely have been within the range of reasonable responses because the employment and personal relationship had broken down. The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded, although the notice period was not quantified in this judgment. The holiday pay claim succeeded on the basis that the claimant could carry over 20 days from the 2019 leave year plus accrued leave to dismissal, with the precise sum left to the remedy hearing. The Employment Act 2002 Schedule 5 claim also succeeded, and the tribunal said it would be just and equitable to award 4 weeks' pay for the failure to provide written particulars.