Case 2406807/2023 · Employment Tribunal
unrepresented For the first v Mr R Mackinnon and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406807/2023
- Decision date
- 12 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
unrepresented For the first
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr R Mackinnon was employed jointly by CFG Holdings (S) Pte Ltd and Chiropractic First Group Limited from 7 August 2019 until 16 June 2023. He gave notice of resignation on 17 April 2023 intending to work until 16 July 2023, but the tribunal found he was entitled to resign with immediate effect because the respondents had committed repudiatory breaches by repeatedly failing over many months to pay his full contractual wages. The tribunal accepted that the final straw was a series of remote Zoom meetings in which he was not given sufficient reassurance that his contractual payments would be honoured.
The tribunal found that the decision to resign was caused by the breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and that Mr Mackinnon did not delay unduly before resigning. It accepted that he waited until he received his late March 2023 salary, and found that obtaining legal advice and additional funds before resigning was reasonable in light of the respondents' previous conduct. After he initially agreed to work his notice, the respondents suspended him in May 2023 without good reason and without paying contractual wages, which meant he was entitled to abridge his notice; the effective date of termination was 17 June 2023.
The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal succeeded. The tribunal also upheld the breach of contract complaint for unpaid notice pay, the unlawful deduction from wages complaint, and the claim for unpaid annual leave. It found that Mr Mackinnon had mitigated his losses by working continuously as a self-employed chiropractor and by starting a new chiropractic partnership with his wife.
Remedy was assessed at £96,426.83 in total. The unfair dismissal award comprised a basic award of £2,893.50 and a compensatory award initially calculated at £78,977.50, including 25% uplifts for failure to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice, but reduced to £69,000 because of the statutory cap. The tribunal also awarded £8,333.33 for notice pay, £12,950 for unlawful deductions, and £3,250 for holiday pay. It recorded a prescribed element for recoupment of £57,862 and a balance of £38,564.83.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal described this as constructive unfair dismissal. It found repudiatory breaches arising from repeated non-payment of contractual wages and later suspension without pay; the basic award was £2,893.50 and the compensatory award was capped at £69,000. | Upheld | — | £71,894 |
| Breach of contract | Successful claim for unpaid notice pay after the claimant was suspended without pay and without a disciplinary process. The tribunal awarded £8,333.33. | Upheld | — | £8,333 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Successful claim covering unpaid salary for April 2023, outstanding London commission, the 'No New Doctors' commission, and partially unpaid wages in April 2022 and February 2023. The tribunal awarded £12,950. | Upheld | — | £12,950 |
| Holiday pay | Successful claim for 11 days' untaken annual leave for the leave year beginning on 1 January 2023. The tribunal awarded £3,250. | Upheld | — | £3,250 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £96,427
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,894
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £69,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- repudiatory breach
- implied term of trust and confidence
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.