Case 2418814/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Scorgie Miss S Lomas v Golden Egg Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2418814/2020
- Decision date
- 17 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Scorgie Miss S Lomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBoth claimants worked for Golden Egg Recruitment Group Limited from 3 February 2020, and the respondent's response was struck out for non-compliance with an unless order. The final hearing proceeded on the claimants' evidence and documents, and the tribunal found persistent problems with payslips, PAYE registration and payment of wages before and after the move to Golden Egg Group Limited.
The tribunal found a TUPE transfer from Recruitment to Golden Egg Group Limited on 17 August 2020. It held that Recruitment's liabilities transferred subject to TUPE regulation 8(5) for insolvency-related arrears and holiday pay, and that pension liabilities were excluded by TUPE regulation 10. On the dismissal claims, the tribunal found that the late payment of full August 2020 wages was a breach of contract but not a deliberate refusal or a fundamental breach going to the root of the contract, so neither claimant had been constructively dismissed. The wrongful dismissal claims also failed because both claimants resigned with immediate effect rather than serving the contractual month's notice.
On protected disclosures, the tribunal held that the February 2020 data-protection complaints, the April and May 2020 queries about P60s, payslips and PAYE records, and Miss Lomas's 16 April 2020 call to HMRC were qualifying and protected disclosures. It did not make a finding on Miss Lomas's alleged 22 August 2020 HMRC call. D1, removing both claimants from the company WhatsApp group, and D2, a WhatsApp message blaming them for contacting HMRC, were detriments done on the ground of those disclosures. D3, the non-payment of wages, was not.
Each claimant was awarded £11,000 for injury to feelings for the whistleblowing detriments, assessed at the lower end of the middle Vento band. The tribunal found no financial loss or personal injury caused by D1 or D2, but it increased the relevant awards by 20% under s.207A TULRCA because the respondent unreasonably failed to deal with the grievances. The final sums payable for the detriment awards formed part of the overall totals due within 14 days.
The tribunal also upheld the claims for unpaid August and early September 2020 wages and accrued holiday pay. It ordered Golden Egg Group Limited to pay Miss Scorgie £1,640.74 for wages and £54.93 for holiday pay, and Miss Lomas £2,273.23 for wages and £275.94 for holiday pay. The separate allegations of underpayment from March to July 2020 and deductions for tax and national insurance not being remitted to HMRC failed, as did the pension auto-enrolment breach-of-contract claims. The tribunal declared that no itemised pay statements had been provided under s.8 ERA 1996, but made no monetary award. The total payable within 14 days was £15,234.80 to Miss Scorgie and £16,259.00 to Miss Lomas, a combined total of £31,493.80.
Claims and outcomes
13 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 | Both Miss Scorgie and Miss Lomas. The tribunal found no constructive dismissal because the late payment of full August 2020 wages was not a deliberate refusal going to the root of the contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Both claimants. They resigned with immediate effect, so no contractual notice pay was due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Miss Scorgie. D1 (removal from the company WhatsApp group) and D2 (being blamed in a WhatsApp message for contacting HMRC) succeeded; D3 failed. The tribunal awarded £11,000 for injury to feelings before the 20% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £11,000 |
| Whistleblowing | Miss Lomas. D1 (removal from the company WhatsApp group) and D2 (being blamed in a WhatsApp message for contacting HMRC) succeeded; D3 failed. The tribunal awarded £11,000 for injury to feelings before the 20% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £11,000 |
| Whistleblowing | Both claimants. D3, the non-payment of wages detriment, did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,494
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
14 references- Cheesman v R Brewer Contracts Ltd multifactorial TUPE approach
- TUPE regulation 8(5) insolvency limits
- TUPE regulation 10 occupational pension exclusion
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp constructive dismissal test
- Cantor Fitzgerald International v Callaghan non-payment of wages
- Parsons v Airplus International / Cavendish Munro / Kilraine qualifying disclosure test
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed public interest belief
- Shamoon v RUC detriment test
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester material influence test
- International Petroleum Ltd v Osipov burden of proof
- Vento guidelines
- Virgo Fidelis School v Boyle injury to feelings approach
- Somerset County Council v Chambers wages definition
- s.207A TULRCA 1992 ACAS uplift
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.