Ms Alison Mottley v Ms Ines Lagha — 2023

The claimant, Ms Alison Mottley, worked as a live-out nanny for Ms Ines Lagha’s family from September 2016 until the end of July 2021. The ET1 included a redundancy payment claim and a breach of contract claim for unpaid contractual notice pay. At a preliminary hearing on 16 March 2023, the notice-pay claim was held to be out of time and outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction, while time was extended for the redundancy payment claim.

On the evidence, the tribunal found that the parties’ actual pay arrangement was £2,100 net per month, made up of bank transfer, cash and voucher payments, and that the original Nannytax paperwork showing £1,220 gross per month was not a reliable reflection of the agreed terms. It rejected the respondent’s case that the cash and voucher elements were discretionary gifts, and found that the claimant was not aware of, responsible for, or complicit in any shortfall in tax or national insurance payments.

The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed when told on 1 July 2021 that her services would no longer be needed because the family was moving to a home near the child’s school and the respondent intended to care for the children herself during maternity leave. Applying the statutory redundancy provisions and the presumption in s.163(2) ERA 1996, the tribunal rejected the respondent’s case that the dismissal was mainly for conduct or performance reasons. It held that the family’s change of circumstances fell within s.139 ERA 1996 and, even if the respondent had concerns about the claimant, the decision to move the family and no longer require her services still pointed to redundancy rather than misconduct.

On remedy, the tribunal found that the claimant had four complete years of service, was over 41 throughout that period, and that the statutory cap on a week’s pay was £544. Using the redundancy formula in s.162 ERA 1996, it awarded 4 x 1.5 x £544, producing a redundancy payment of £3,264. The tribunal declined to deduct an asserted final lump sum of £2,200, and it held that any potential illegality in the pay arrangements did not bar enforcement of the redundancy claim after applying the principles in Patel v Mirza and Stoffel and Co v Grondona.