Case 2602771/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Warren Quince v RO & OX Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602771/2021
- Decision date
- 20 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharkey Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Warren Quince
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat remotely before Employment Judge Sharkey alone and amended the respondent's name to RO & OX Limited, applying the Selkent principles. The claimant's complaints were breach of contract for notice pay, holiday pay, and a claim for employer pension contributions. The respondent said the claimant had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct; the claimant said he had resigned on 27 August 2021 and was still entitled to notice pay, holiday pay, and pension contributions.
On the notice issue, the tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence and found that the matters relied on by the respondent did not amount to gross misconduct. It found that the claimant had given 3 weeks' notice in his resignation email, that the respondent brought forward the termination date to 31 August 2021 by purporting to summarily dismiss him, and that the respondent was therefore liable in breach of contract. Damages were assessed by reference to the claimant's gross monthly salary of £2,000, giving gross weekly pay of £461.54 and an award of £1,384.62 for 3 weeks' notice.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the contract provided for 28 days' annual leave, that the holiday year ran from 1 January to 31 December, and that carry-over from 2020 was not agreed and was not available on the facts found. It held that the claimant had accrued 18.8 days by 31 August 2021, had already taken 13 days, and was therefore owed 5.8 days, or 1.2 weeks, in lieu of accrued but untaken leave. Using the same gross weekly pay figure, it ordered payment of £553.85 and recorded that the claimant would be responsible for tax and national insurance deductions if due.
The claimant's separate complaint for employer pension contributions, said to total £473.76, was not determined on the merits because the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction over that part of the claim. The claimant also mentioned a £30 expenses item, but the tribunal did not order payment of it. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was £1,938.47.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim succeeded. The tribunal found the respondent was not entitled to summarily dismiss the claimant for gross misconduct and ordered damages equivalent to 3 weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim succeeded in part. The tribunal found the claimant had accrued 5.8 days, or about 1.2 weeks, of untaken leave in the final leave year and ordered payment in lieu of that accrued holiday. | Upheld | — | £554 |
| Other | Claim for employer pension contributions of £473.76 (8 months at £59.22 per month) was held to be outside the tribunal's jurisdiction under s.27(2)(c) ERA 1996 and University of Sunderland v Drossou [2017] IRLR 1087; no merits finding was made. | Other | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,938
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore [1996] ICR 836
- s.13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
- Delaney v Staples [1992] ICR 483 HL
- Neary v Dean of Westminster [1999] IRLR 288
- Shaw v B & W Group Ltd UKEAT/0583/11
- University of Sunderland v Drossou [2017] IRLR 1087
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.