Case 2502438/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Gowland, in person v Sunderland Association Football Club Ltd. — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502438/2022
- Decision date
- 13 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Legard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Gowland, in person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Gowland brought a complaint under s.13 ERA 1996 about unpaid weekly retainer fees arising from his long-standing engagement as a talent scout for Sunderland Association Football Club Limited. The tribunal found that the relevant written agreement from 2004 provided for a weekly retainer, later increased to £40 per week in 2011, and that in November 2020 the club moved him onto a new Local Talent Scout Agreement providing for £10 per hour, bonuses, expenses, and no retainer fee.
The tribunal accepted that Mr Gowland had been told by Jed McNamee and then by a letter from Jo Graham dated 31 October 2020 that the retainer fee was being withdrawn with effect from 1 November 2020. Although Mr Gowland understood that it might be looked at again if the financial position improved, the tribunal found there was no certainty or guarantee that the retainer would be reinstated. It also found that he continued to work under the revised arrangement after the retainer was terminated.
On time limits, the tribunal held that the claim crystallised on 1 November 2020 and that time began to run from that date. It found there was a continuing series of deductions after that date, or alternatively that Mr Gowland waived any contractual breach and affirmed the new casual worker agreement, which made no provision for a retainer fee. Even on that basis, the primary time limit expired at the end of February 2021, while ACAS early conciliation did not begin until October 2022 and the claim form was not presented until December 2022.
The tribunal concluded that Mr Gowland knew all that he reasonably needed to know in November 2020, that there were no supervening illness or technical issues preventing a timely claim, and that preferring to pursue dialogue or an internal grievance process did not excuse the delay. It held that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the statutory period, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the complaint was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the complaint was presented out of time, that it was reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory time limit, and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.23 ERA 1996 time limit
- s.23(4) ERA 1996 reasonably practicable test
- Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton series of deductions
- Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan
- s.13 ERA 1996 unlawful deductions
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.