James Spence v Environmental Products and Services Limited — 2024

The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claim in England and Wales. It found that the respondent carried on business in England and Wales, the claimant was based in Essex and was intended to work in England, and the contract's Northern Ireland jurisdiction clause did not displace the claimant's statutory rights. Applying Regulation 8 of the Employment Tribunals Rules, and the territorial reach authorities in Lawson v Serco and Ravat v Halliburton, the tribunal treated this as a standard Great Britain case under the ERA 1996.

On the merits, the tribunal found that the claimant was fit to return to work from 23 December 2022 and that there was no basis for the respondent to refuse his return pending more conclusive medical evidence. The tribunal said that, if the respondent had concerns about its duty of care, the appropriate course would have been an occupational health referral and consideration of a phased return and/or reasonable adjustments. It found that the respondent was not entitled to keep the claimant on SSP once he was no longer certified unfit for work.

The claim for unauthorised deduction from wages therefore succeeded for the period 23 December 2022 to 31 January 2023. The tribunal calculated 5.5 weeks' gross salary at £2,916.25, less SSP of £874.28 already paid, leaving £2,041.97 gross due to the claimant. The tribunal did not relist the matter for a remedy hearing because there was sufficient evidence before it and the respondent had not engaged with the post-hearing directions on the amount owed.

The separate claim for unpaid accrued annual leave failed. The tribunal found that the holiday pay had already been paid on the February 2023 payslip, so that claim was dismissed.