Case 2410494/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Tickle Mr S Hopkins Mr L Burr v Sporting Club Leigh Ltd t/a Leigh Centurions — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410494/2018
- Decision date
- 19 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Tickle Mr S Hopkins Mr L Burr
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that clause 2.4 of the standard RFL player contract could be used after relegation and construed 'current season' by reference to the season in which the club was then playing, not the season in which the new employment term would start. It found that Mr Hopkins's 18 June 2017 contract took legal effect even though the Club did not submit it to the RFL, because clause 1.3 made the agreement effective between the parties unless the League refused registration. On that basis the Club was entitled to give notice to terminate the Hopkins, Tickle and Burr contracts after relegation, with notices taking effect on 8 January 2018, 5 January 2018 and 16 January 2018 respectively, so the breach of contract claims failed.
For Mr Hopkins, the tribunal held that the Club's notice under clause 2.4 amounted to a dismissal by the employer under s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996. The reason was the Club's exercise of the relegation clause after the Million Pound Game, which was not a potentially fair reason within s.98(2) but did amount to some other substantial reason. Applying s.98(4), the tribunal found the consultation process just sufficient to make the dismissal fair: Mr Hopkins was asked to attend a meeting, told about the Club's finances and the clause, and could raise anything he wished, although there were no notes and the ACAS Code of Practice did not apply because this was not a disciplinary matter.
The unlawful deduction claims succeeded for Mr Hopkins and Mr Burr. The tribunal found that the evidence did not show on the balance of probabilities that Mr Hopkins had signed the Code of Conduct, so he had not authorised deductions, and in any event the fines were not properly and reasonably imposed because there had been no disciplinary hearing allowing the issue to be fully considered. Mr Burr's deduction claim succeeded for the same reasons. The tribunal did not quantify the deductions and invited the parties to agree the sums or apply for a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the Club's notice under clause 2.4 amounted to a dismissal by the employer under s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996, found the reason to be the Club's exercise of the relegation clause, and held the dismissal fair under s.98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that Mr Hopkins's 18 June 2017 contract took legal effect despite not being lodged with the RFL and that the Club was entitled to terminate it by contractual notice expiring on 8 January 2018. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found no proof on the balance of probabilities that Mr Hopkins had signed the Code of Conduct authorising deductions, and in any event the fine was not properly and reasonably imposed. The amount was not quantified and the parties were invited to agree it or seek a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that Mr Tickle's contract signed on or around 25 July 2017 took legal effect and that the Club was entitled to give notice to terminate it expiring on 5 January 2018, or alternatively that reasonable notice had been given. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the June 2017 conversation with Mr Jukes was only a question and answer about Mr Burr's intentions, not an agreement to vary or waive clause 2.4, so the notice expiring on 16 January 2018 was valid. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.15 ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
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.