Case 2302660/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Lewis-Donaldson v Mastermind Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302660/2023
- Decision date
- 10 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Musgrave-Cohen Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Lewis-Donaldson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr B Lewis-Donaldson, was employed by Mastermind Group Ltd as an Artist Development Assistant from 30 May 2022 to 12 May 2023. His contract provided for a salary of £23,000 a year, equivalent to £1,916.66 gross per month or £442.31 gross per week. He complained on 5 May 2023 that he had not been paid correctly, and on 7 May 2023 Mr Eastwood emailed that he was dismissed as of 5 May 2023 and would be paid any outstanding salary up to 12 May 2023 as soon as practicable.
The respondent did not present an ET3 response on time. At the hearing on 30 October 2023, the tribunal refused a same-day postponement application under rule 30A and proceeded under rule 21. The tribunal did not make findings on the conduct matters mentioned by Mr Eastwood, because there was no response before it and the respondent was not permitted to participate in the hearing beyond clarification questions.
On the evidence before it, the tribunal found that between 1 March 2023 and 12 May 2023 the claimant was contractually entitled to £4,717.94, made up of salary and one week’s notice pay, but had only been paid £1,100, leaving a gross shortfall of £3,617.94. It held that the respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from wages and had also breached the contract by failing to pay one week’s notice pay, with the £442.31 notice element accounted for within the wages award.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had raised the unpaid wages issue verbally, by WhatsApp, and by email, but his complaints were ignored or met by dismissal rather than a grievance process. For that reason, it applied a 25% uplift under the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, amounting to £904.49. The total gross award was therefore £4,522.43, and the tribunal stated that the award could be satisfied by payment of the net sum to the claimant and any tax and national insurance due to HMRC at source where applicable.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross shortfall for wages due between 1 March 2023 and 12 May 2023. Paragraph 3 states that the £442.31 notice pay element was accounted for within this unpaid wages award. | Upheld | — | £3,618 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a breach for non-payment of one week’s notice pay, but said the £442.31 gross notice pay was accounted for under the unpaid wages award, so no separate monetary figure was set out for this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,522
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- rule 30A Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2015)
- Walters t/a Rosewood v Barik UKEAT/0053/16/BA
- Overriding Objective
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.