Ms R Perera v Jamie Briggs Removals and Storage Ltd — 2025

At the start of the final hearing the claimant applied to strike out the respondent's response under Rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal refused the application, finding that strike out was a draconian measure and that a fair hearing remained possible within the two-day listing after the documents ordered in case management had been provided.

The claimant had been employed as Managing Director from 7 February 2022 until dismissal on 2 October 2023. The dispute turned on an offer letter and later contract terms said to provide for a one-off payment, a capped bonus scheme and an uncapped bonus scheme linked to net profit over budget. The tribunal found that the offer letter terms on bonus were incorporated into the contract, or alternatively varied into the contract by later discussions and emails.

On the evidence, the tribunal found that the claimant was responsible for both JBR and HSL during her employment and that the relevant accounts submitted to HMRC were the proper figures to use. It accepted that the claimant had already been paid £22,000 and concluded that, on the respondent's figures, the total bonus due for financial year 2022 to 2023 and Q1 of financial year 2023 to 2024 was £21,392.50. The tribunal also found that Q2 of financial year 2023 to 2024 accrued after termination and was therefore not payable.

The tribunal held that the claimant had received all salary, car allowance, mobile telephone allowance and holiday pay due under the pay-in-lieu-of-notice provisions. Applying section 27(1) ERA 1996 and Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) 1993 ICR 483, HL, it found that post-termination pay in lieu of notice was not wages for the purposes of section 13 ERA 1996. It therefore dismissed both the unlawful deduction from wages claim and the breach of contract claim, finding that no further sums were properly payable.