Mr A Takpi-Young v Aviva plc and 2 others — 2022

Mr A Takpi-Young brought a claim for damages for breach of contract, seeking two weeks' pay said to be due on termination of his engagement. The tribunal found that he was a contractor working to the first respondent through a contractual chain involving an umbrella company and the third respondent, and it accepted that the second respondent was not party to the relevant contracts. It found no evidence of a direct contractual relationship between the claimant and any of the respondents, and said it was not necessary on the evidence and submissions to imply one, referring to James v Greenwich Borough Council.

The tribunal also found that the terms of engagement provided for contractors to be placed on furlough for four weeks during the Christmas period, during which they were not paid, and that the claimant accepted he had no expectation of pay during that furlough period if his engagement had continued. Although he was initially led to understand that he would be paid for his notice period and was asked to submit timesheets, no payment was made. The tribunal accepted that this miscommunication understandably led him to believe he was entitled to be paid.

The claim nevertheless failed because, even if a direct contractual relationship had been established with the first or third respondent, the contractual terms meant no money was payable on termination. The tribunal held that compensation for breach of contract would have been based on what the claimant would have been paid during the notice period, and because that notice period fell during the furlough period, no pay was payable in those weeks in any event. The claim was therefore dismissed against all three respondents.