A Cummings v High Trees Community Development Trust — 2022

The claimant worked for the respondent as a Quality and Curriculum Coordinator from 24 June 2019 until 24 September 2021. She had signed a mobile phone agreement on 22 March 2021 stating that, on termination of employment or if the handset was requested back, the handset should be returned in satisfactory condition; any damage would result in costs being deducted, and failure to return the handset would result in the cost of the unit being deducted from final monies owed.

The respondent withheld £500 on 28 September 2021 because it did not know whether the laptop and mobile phone would be returned or, if returned, whether they would be undamaged. The claimant did return the laptop and mobile phone later that day. The main dispute was whether the mobile phone fell within the deduction clause because it was returned with a passcode still on it, and whether the respondent was entitled to treat that as not being in satisfactory condition. The tribunal accepted that a reasonable person would read satisfactory condition as including that the phone be useable, but found that the agreement was specific about when deductions could be made.

The tribunal found that the phone had in fact been returned on 28 September 2021, so no deduction could be made on the basis that it had not been returned. It also found that the respondent had not produced evidence that the phone was damaged, and did not accept that it was necessary to take the phone to a Samsung store to determine whether it was damaged. The respondent also produced no receipt or invoice for the alleged replacement phone. On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent was not entitled to make the deduction and that the claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages succeeded. The amount due was £134.99 gross, subject to tax and national insurance deductions.