Case 3302339/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E D’Aquino and Mr D Landolfi v v Hoxton Beach Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302339/2020
- Decision date
- 16 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cotton Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E D’Aquino and Mr D Landolfi v
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs E D'Aquino and Mr D Landolfi worked for Hoxton Beach Ltd at the Clissold Leisure Centre cafe and, by the end of the employment relationship, the tribunal found they were in practice carrying out managerial roles. The claimants had asked for written contracts and clearer terms, and there were disputes about their roles and the effect of the new area manager's instructions, but the tribunal found those matters did not amount to a dismissal.
On the events of 3 and 4 November 2019, the tribunal held that the claimants' letters were resignations rather than grievances or requests for a different role. Mr Matthews was entitled to accept those resignations, and the tribunal found no evidence that they had been pressured to resign. It also rejected constructive dismissal: although Mr Matthews' management of staff matters was sometimes inconsistent and lacked clarity, the conduct found did not amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed, and the breach of contract claim based on notice also fell away. The tribunal dismissed the claim for unpaid hours because it found the claimants were paid for the hours they recorded and there was no evidential basis for a further wages claim. It upheld the holiday pay claim, finding that the respondent's rolled-up holiday pay system did not pay the claimants their holiday entitlement, and listed that issue for a separate remedy hearing.
The pension-related unlawful deduction claim was withdrawn at the hearing. The tribunal also said that any section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for failure to provide written particulars would be determined at the remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimants' letters of 3 November 2019 were resignations which Mr Matthews was entitled to accept on 4 November 2019; it rejected both actual and constructive dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice claim fell away because the tribunal found no dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimants were paid for the hours they recorded and that there was no deduction for unpaid hours worked. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the respondent's rolled-up holiday pay system failed to pay the claimants their holiday entitlement; remedy was listed for a separate hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The pension-contribution unlawful deduction claim was withdrawn on the day of the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.95(1)(a) and (b) ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- constructive dismissal / fundamental breach of contract
- implied term of trust and confidence
- s.98(1), (2) and (4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23(2) and (4A) ERA 1996
- Bear Scotland Ltd and ors v Fulton and ors
- Regulations 13, 13A and 16 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.104(1)(b) ERA 1996
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.