Case 2406787/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Mundy v A2B Financial Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406787/2022
- Decision date
- 4 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rhodes Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Mundy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Mundy was employed by A2B Financial Limited from 28 February 2022 until he was summarily dismissed on 14 June 2022. The tribunal found that the respondent did not provide a written statement of employment particulars before the start of employment, although it did provide a written contract on 28 March 2022. It also found that the claimant’s itemised payslips had been sent to the email address on his starter form and rejected his evidence that the address had been altered.
The tribunal held that late payment of the claimant’s wages for 1 to 14 June 2022 was an unauthorised deduction from wages, but no compensation was awarded because those wages were later paid in full. The claimant also succeeded on holiday pay: he had accrued 8.5 days during his 3.5 months of employment, had taken seven days, and was owed 1.5 days, calculated as 10.5 hours at £8.44 per hour, producing a gross award of £88.62. The tribunal rejected any further recovery linked to the Universal Credit issue because the DWP later recalculated entitlement and paid arrears of £10.07, so there was no recoverable financial loss attributable to the late wage payment.
On the written statement issue, the tribunal found a breach of sections 1(1) and 1(2) ERA 1996 but refused any section 38 Employment Act 2002 award because, when proceedings began, the respondent had already provided a written contract and was no longer in breach of section 1(1). On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal did not accept that the claimant’s conduct on 13 and 14 June 2022 amounted to gross misconduct. It found that he had notified the respondent of his absence on 13 June, albeit possibly to the wrong person, and that leaving early on 14 June was misconduct but not serious enough to justify summary dismissal.
The claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint was withdrawn because he did not have two years’ service. The respondent’s counter-claim was also withdrawn. The tribunal indicated that a further remedies hearing would be needed to determine wrongful dismissal damages unless the parties could agree them.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Late payment of wages for 1-14 June 2022 was held to be an unauthorised deduction. The wages were later paid in full, so no monetary award was made on this claim. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant was entitled to payment in lieu of 1.5 days' accrued but untaken holiday, calculated as 10.5 hours at £8.44 per hour. | Upheld | — | £89 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Summary dismissal was found not to be justified by gross misconduct. Damages were left to be determined at a further remedies hearing unless agreed between the parties. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal found a breach of the obligation to provide a written statement of employment particulars before employment started, but made no section 38 Employment Act 2002 award because a written contract had been provided by 28 March 2022. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Withdrawn at the hearing because the claimant was not pursuing it given the lack of two years' service. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £89
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.24(2) ERA 1996
- s.25(3) ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, art. 3(c)
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, art. 4(d)
- Laws v London Chronicle
- Neary v Dean of Westminster
- Adesokan v Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
- Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust v Westwood
- Robert Bates Wrekin Landscapes Ltd v Knight
- Elizabeth Claire Care Management Ltd v Francis
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.