Case 2300696/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Roff v Carosa Limited t/a Farleigh Coaches — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300696/2020
- Decision date
- 7 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beckett Dated
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Roff
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Roff worked for Carosa Limited t/a Farleigh Coaches from 8 January 2018 to 14 January 2020 as an office assistant. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was misconduct based on the respondent's belief that she had taken unauthorised leave, but that belief was not on reasonable grounds and was not reached after a fair and reasonable investigation. The claimant had been told not to attend work on 31 December 2019 and 2 January 2020, had repeatedly asked for details of the allegations and time to prepare, and the respondent did not provide the information or allow a proper postponement. The procedure was found unreasonable, and the dismissal was held unfair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On pay, the tribunal found that the claimant was told her pay was £9 per hour, but her payslips fluctuated between £250 and £315 for weeks with no explained difference in hours. It accepted that she worked 40 hours per week and was underpaid for weeks before 13 September 2019, when her pay rose to £360 per week at £9 per hour for 40 hours. The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was found to be out of time, with no extension granted, but the underpayment still amounted to a successful breach of contract claim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction order.
On notice pay, the tribunal rejected the respondent's gross misconduct case and found that the claimant had not committed conduct serious enough to justify summary dismissal, so she was entitled to notice pay and succeeded in breach of contract. The holiday pay issue was not finally determined in this judgment; the tribunal said it would hear further submissions at the remedy hearing, including the effect of regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 and King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd on carry-over of untaken leave. Remedy was therefore left to a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was misconduct based on a belief that the claimant had taken unauthorised leave, but that belief was not based on reasonable grounds and was not reached after a fair and reasonable investigation. The claimant had asked for details of the allegations and more time to prepare, but these requests were not properly answered. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found this claim was out of time and declined to extend time because it considered it was reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for underpayment of wages. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was paid £9 per hour, worked 40 hours per week, and was underpaid for weeks before 13 September 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract claim for notice pay. The tribunal found the claimant was not guilty of conduct serious enough to entitle the respondent to summarily dismiss her without notice. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- British Home Stores v Burchill
- Post Office v Foley
- band of reasonable responses
- section 3 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 13(9) Working Time Regulations 1998
- King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd
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.