Case 3202096/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E. Fejzo v Lillywhite Property Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202096/2023
- Decision date
- 4 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Chudleigh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E. Fejzo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr E. Fejzo, was employed by Lillywhite Property Group Limited as a Plumbing and Gas Engineer from 1 February 2023 to 31 August 2023. The tribunal found that his contract provided for enrolment in an automatic enrolment pension scheme and that he was enrolled in a SMART scheme. It also found that £183.45 was deducted from his wages each month as employee pension contributions, while the total payable to the scheme was £293.52 each month, except August 2023 when it was £275.95.
The tribunal found that the respondent made no employee or employer pension contributions for April, May, June, July and August 2023, despite deducting employee contributions from the claimant's pay. The sum not paid into the pension fund was £1,450.03, and the tribunal held that this failure was a breach of contract. It ordered the respondent to pay damages of £1,450.03. The tribunal also noted that other sums the claimant sought, including money he had borrowed from others, were too remote to be recoverable.
The respondent's employer's contract claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that when he was first employed the claimant did not say he was a carpenter in interview or on his CV, but only said he had been involved in a kitchen installation where there was a carpenter on the project and he was the plumber. The tribunal also noted that his contract described him as a Gas Engineer / Plumber Maintenance Operative, not a carpenter. It therefore found that he had not made a misrepresentation about his abilities and had not breached contract.
The judgment was determined under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, including the provisions on employee contract claims and employer contract claims. The respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claimant succeeded on his breach of contract claim concerning unpaid pension contributions. The tribunal found the contract provided for automatic enrolment pension contributions, that employee contributions were deducted from wages, and that no employee or employer contributions were paid for April, May, June, July and August 2023. Damages were awarded in the sum of £1,450.03. | Upheld | — | £1,450 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's employer's contract claim alleging that the claimant had misrepresented his carpentry abilities was dismissed as not well founded. The tribunal found the claimant had not said he was a carpenter in interview or on his CV and had not made a misrepresentation or breach of contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,450
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,450
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, section 3
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, section 4
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.