Case 2502695/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Claimant v Rowburn Construction and Rowburn Construction Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 2502695/2019
Decision date: 21 February 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Langridge Representation
Venue: North Shields Hearing Centre

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Respondent

Rowburn Construction and Rowburn Construction Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr M Love worked as a construction pointer from 1 February 2017 until 25 June 2019. The tribunal found that no written particulars or written contract were ever issued, and that the oral or implied terms included around 39 hours' work each week, pay at £14 per hour, paid annual leave, and fortnightly wage payments. It found there was no term allowing the respondents to lay him off without work or pay.

On 26 April 2019 the claimant was told he was being laid off and then received no wages or holiday pay. The tribunal found that this withdrawal of work and pay was a repudiatory breach of contract, but it also found that he accepted the position and waived that breach by not resigning until 18 June 2019, after he had already started new employment on 12 June 2019. For that reason, the constructive dismissal/unfair dismissal claim failed because he was not dismissed within section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996, and no basic award followed.

The tribunal upheld the alternative redundancy payment claim under the lay-off provisions. It found that he had been laid off within section 147, that he had served a notice of intention to claim a redundancy payment on 9 June 2019 after six consecutive weeks without work, and that his email of 18 June 2019 was effective notice to terminate his contract on 25 June 2019 after one week's notice. It accepted his calculation and awarded £1,575.

The tribunal also upheld the wage and holiday pay claims. It awarded £3,822 gross for unpaid wages from 26 April 2019 to 12 June 2019, and £1,092 gross for ten days' accrued but unpaid holiday. It further awarded £2,100 under section 38 Employment Act 2002, being four weeks' pay at the statutory weekly cap of £525, because no written statement of employment particulars had been provided. The notice pay claim was dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Constructive dismissal	The tribunal accepted that withdrawing work and pay on 26 April 2019 was a repudiatory breach, but found the claimant waived that breach by staying in employment until 18 June 2019; it therefore held that he was not dismissed within section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Redundancy	Upheld under the lay-off redundancy provisions after the claimant had been laid off for six consecutive weeks and had given written notice of intention to claim on 9 June 2019.	Upheld	—	£1,575
Unlawful deduction from wages	Awarded as gross wages unpaid from 26 April 2019 to 12 June 2019, calculated by reference to the gross weekly rate of £546 for seven weeks.	Upheld	—	£3,822
Holiday pay	Awarded for ten days' accrued but unpaid holiday, calculated by reference to two weeks' gross pay at £546 per week.	Upheld	—	£1,092
Other	Award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide written particulars of employment; four weeks' pay at the statutory weekly cap of £525.	Upheld	—	£2,100
Breach of contract	The judgment records that the claimant's notice pay claim was dismissed.	Dismissed

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £8,589; across all upheld claims

Legal tests applied

7 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.