Case 2400550/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Brian Mellor Mrs Susan Mellor v Lunar Automotive Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2400550/2020
- Decision date
- 15 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Brian Mellor Mrs Susan Mellor
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mrs Mellor was not an employee of Lunar Caravans Ltd before the TUPE transfer and therefore did not transfer to the respondent. Although she had carried out some limited tasks for Mr Mellor and had been paid through PAYE, the tribunal found insufficient control, mutuality of obligation, and other features of an employment relationship. Her complaints against the respondent were therefore dismissed.
For Mr Mellor, the tribunal found that his salary at transfer was £681 per month. His unilateral instruction shortly before administration to restore a higher salary did not validly vary his contractual entitlement because no board decision had been made, and the company was close to insolvency. The respondent's non-payment of salary after August 2019 was therefore treated as an excepted deduction made to reimburse overpaid wages, so the unauthorised deductions and holiday pay complaints were not well founded.
The tribunal found that the respondent breached Mr Mellor's contract by failing to reimburse car petrol expenses of £1,833.47. It also found that the failure to pay those expenses, together with delay in dealing with his grievance and failure to provide a grievance outcome, amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. Those matters were an effective cause of his resignation, and the respondent had not shown a potentially fair reason, so his constructive unfair dismissal complaint was well founded.
The respondent's employer contract claim against Mr Mellor failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that he had acted deceitfully rather than mistakenly in relation to the August payment. The claim against Mrs Mellor was dismissed because she was not an employee and, in any event, the respondent accepted there was no evidence supporting the alleged breach.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | First claimant's constructive unfair dismissal complaint was well founded; remedy was reserved to a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The formal judgment states the first claimant's notice/wrongful dismissal complaint was not well founded, but paragraph 168 of the reasons states that the respondent was in breach by not giving 12 months' notice. Outcome treated as ambiguous. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | First claimant's breach of contract complaint for unpaid car expenses was well founded; the tribunal found petrol costs of £1,833.47 had not been reimbursed. | Upheld | — | £1,833 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant's unauthorised deductions complaints for unpaid salary were not well founded because the deductions were for reimbursement of overpaid wages. The second claimant's complaints were dismissed because she was not an employee. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | First claimant's holiday pay complaints, whether framed as unauthorised deductions or breach of contract, were not well founded. The second claimant's complaints were dismissed because she was not an employee. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Limited
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.14 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Imam-Sadeque v Bluebay Asset Management (Services) Ltd
- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
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.