Case 2604266/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Botham v The Vintage Motor Cycle Club Limited Heard: via Cloud Video Platform — 2021
- Case reference
- 2604266/2020
- Decision date
- 2 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Botham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Botham was employed by The Vintage Motor Cycle Club Limited from 1 October 2015 and was dismissed by reason of redundancy in August 2020. At dismissal he was aged 54, had four complete years' service, earned £40,721 gross per year, and his statutory redundancy entitlement was found to be £3,228. The respondent had undertaken a restructuring in early 2020, the claimant's role of General Manager disappeared, and he was offered the new Operations Manager role on a lower salary of £30,000 to £35,000, which he did not want to take up.
The main issue was whether the claimant had a binding agreement for an additional redundancy payment equivalent to one year's pay, said to have arisen from a telephone conversation with Brian Southam on 23 June 2020. The tribunal preferred Mr Southam's evidence, found that he did not make an offer of a year's salary, and held that he did not have authority to make such an offer. It also found that the claimant's 26 June email was self-serving and that his evidence was not credible, including inconsistencies about when the supposed offer was accepted and when it was raised with others.
On that basis, the tribunal held there was no agreement that the claimant would receive an additional redundancy payment of £40,721.28 and no binding contract requiring the respondent to pay a year's gross pay. The claim for the additional redundancy payment therefore failed and was dismissed. The tribunal also noted that the respondent had paid the claimant 9 weeks' notice, a statutory redundancy payment of £3,228, and an ex gratia payment of £4,035, but no further sum was due.
The holiday pay and arrears of pay claims were withdrawn at the start of the hearing after the claimant said those sums had already been paid, and those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant said he had been paid the holiday pay he was entitled to. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed upon withdrawal after the claimant said he had been paid the arrears of pay / lieu hours he was entitled to. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim for an additional redundancy payment of £40,721.28; the tribunal treated the issue as whether there was a binding agreement for an enhanced redundancy package and found there was not. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- balance of probabilities
- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.162 ERA 1996
- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.