Case 2409617/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Alexander v Howards Solicitors Limited — 2023

Case reference: 2409617/2022
Decision date: 5 June 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Peck

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Alexander

Respondent

Howards Solicitors Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant withdrew his section 10 Employment Relations Act 1999 complaint about the right to be accompanied, and that complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. The remaining issues concerned the terms of the employment contract, whether the respondent could end the employment without notice, whether the respondent owed the claimant a compliant written statement of particulars, and whether holiday pay was due.

The tribunal found that the operative contract was the email sent on 18 May 2022. It treated that email as setting the terms of employment, including a minimum six-month commitment, salary of £32,500 for the first six months rising to £35,000 thereafter, and holiday entitlement. Construing the wording about ending employment early, the tribunal held that the respondent could only terminate before the end of the initial fixed term if there had been a repudiatory breach by the claimant, not merely for any lawful reason.

On the facts, the tribunal found that the claimant had not repudiatorily breached the contract. Although the respondent relied on concerns about duty solicitor status, training, laptop use, and compliance with systems, the tribunal found that the claimant had worked for the respondent between 8 August 2022 and 24 August 2022 without duty status, that the respondent continued employing him after learning of the rota issue, and that his shortcomings did not amount to actual repudiation. The tribunal therefore held that the respondent breached contract by dismissing him without notice and that he was entitled to notice pay for the remainder of the six-month term, less the one week already paid.

The tribunal also found that the respondent had not provided a compliant section 1 ERA 1996 statement of employment particulars because the 18 May email omitted several required particulars. It held that an additional award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 was possible and said the amount would be addressed at a remedy hearing. Separately, it found that holiday accrued from the start of employment and that the claimant was owed holiday pay for 8 August 2022 to 24 August 2022, with the amount also left for the remedy hearing.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This 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
Other	The claimant withdrew his section 10 Employment Relations Act 1999 right-to-be-accompanied complaint at the outset; the tribunal recorded it as dismissed upon withdrawal.	Withdrawn	—	—
Breach of contract	The tribunal found that the operative contract was the 18 May 2022 email, that the respondent could end the initial six-month term early only for a repudiatory breach by the claimant, and that the claimant had not committed such a breach. The respondent therefore breached contract by dismissing him without notice; the judgment also described this as a wrongful dismissal claim.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The tribunal found that the respondent had not provided a compliant written statement of employment particulars under section 1 ERA 1996 because the 18 May 2022 email omitted several prescribed particulars. It held that an additional award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 was possible, with quantification left to the remedy hearing.	Upheld	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The tribunal found that holiday accrued from the start of employment and that the claimant was owed holiday pay for 8 August 2022 to 24 August 2022. The amount was not quantified and was left to the remedy hearing.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.