Case 2305777/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Lawless v Holden Law Limited (t/a Holden & Co LLP) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305777/2021
- Decision date
- 11 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Caiden Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Lawless
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Lawless, brought claims for wrongful dismissal, holiday pay and an unauthorised deduction from wages against Holden Law Limited (t/a Holden & Co LLP). The tribunal found that the written contract provided on 23 April 2021 contained a clause requiring not less than three months' notice during continuous employment, and it rejected the respondent's case that this was a mistake or that the claimant knew of any different notice term. It also found that the claimant had accepted the written contract by working under it and relying on it, despite not signing his own copy.
On termination, the tribunal found that the respondent told the claimant on 1 September 2021 that his services were no longer needed and that he would be on garden leave until 3 September 2021, and it treated the 31 August 2021 letter and later emails as confirming that the respondent had brought the employment to an end on 3 September 2021. The wrongful dismissal claim still failed because the tribunal accepted the respondent's later allegations of gross negligence and found that, taken together, they amounted to a breach of trust and confidence at the heart of the solicitor employment relationship. The tribunal relied on the respondent's evidence that complaints had not been passed on, legal aid had not been applied for in several matters, and fees or costs had been lost on a number of files, and concluded that those matters justified summary dismissal and defeated the notice pay claim.
The holiday pay claim failed after the tribunal found that 31.16 days of holiday had accrued across the 2020 and 2021 leave years, including carry-over agreed by the respondent at the turn of 2020 and 2021. It accepted the evidence that 27 days of holiday had been taken. Although that arithmetic left 4.16 days unpaid on a gross accrual basis, the final payslip showed £923.10 paid as holiday pay, equivalent to six days at the agreed daily rate of £153.85, so no holiday remained outstanding on termination.
The unlawful deduction claim succeeded in relation to the £73.53 parking permit deduction on the final wage slip. The tribunal found there was no contractual authority or written consent for the deduction, and that the respondent could not lawfully recoup the sum from wages already due. The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant £73.53 gross, with the claimant responsible for any tax or employee national insurance that may arise on that sum.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for notice pay was dismissed. The tribunal found the contract contained a three-month notice clause, accepted that the claimant had adopted the written terms, and found the respondent terminated employment on 3 September 2021. The claim nevertheless failed because the tribunal found later-discovered conduct by the claimant amounted to a repudiatory breach of trust and confidence that entitled the respondent to rely on summary dismissal to defeat the notice claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for payment in lieu of untaken holiday on termination was dismissed. The tribunal found 31.16 days holiday accrued across the two leave years, 27 days were taken, and the final payslip paid £923.10 for six days holiday. It therefore found no holiday remained outstanding. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the deduction of £73.53 for a parking permit from the final wage slip was unauthorised and ordered repayment of that gross sum. It held there was no contractual term or written agreement authorising the deduction, and the respondent could not recoup the amount from wages on the basis it had been treated as a 'grace and favour' entitlement. | Upheld | — | £74 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £74
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- without prejudice privilege
- Boston Deep Sea Fishing approach
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reg.14 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.