Mr P Claydon v Class Technology Solutions Limited — 2024

Mr Claydon was employed as a Senior IT Engineer and his written contract provided for four weeks' notice after the first three months of employment. At the final meeting on 6 June 2023, the tribunal found that there was no variation of that contractual notice period to three months. It preferred the Respondent's account that the larger payment made on termination was a goodwill or ex gratia payment intended to end the relationship on good terms, rather than an increased contractual entitlement.

The tribunal found that the final payment comprised salary for the days worked to 6 June 2023, pay in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday, payment in lieu of four weeks' notice, and a separate ex gratia element of £8,653.85. It found that the £994.24 child maintenance deduction was taken from the aggregate of the salary, holiday pay and PILON elements, which were "earnings" for deduction from earnings order purposes, and not from the ex gratia element. On that basis, the deduction was capable of falling within the statutory child maintenance scheme.

Applying section 31 of the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support (Collection and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, the tribunal held that the deduction from earnings order served on 5 June 2023 remained in force when payroll processed the final payment. It held that the Respondent had lawful authority and in fact a statutory duty to comply with the order, and that the telephone contact from the Child Maintenance Service on 22 June 2023 was not enough to revoke the order or displace that duty. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unauthorised deduction from wages claim.

The alternative breach of contract claim also failed. The tribunal held that the contractual arrangements were subject to statutory obligations requiring the Respondent to make the child maintenance deduction, and that the deduction was therefore not a breach of contract by the Respondent. The judgment records that Mr Claydon did not pursue an unfair dismissal claim at the hearing, and the only complaint determined was the deduction claim and its contractual alternative, both of which were dismissed.