Case 3305799/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Quanborough v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305799/2022
- Decision date
- 12 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Annand Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Quanborough
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a warehouse operative from 5 October 2021 until summary dismissal on 11 March 2022. At the hearing he withdrew his unfair dismissal claim, accepting he lacked the required two years' service, and also withdrew his unpaid sick pay claim.
The tribunal dismissed the unauthorised deduction claims. It found that the child maintenance deductions were made following correspondence and a schedule from the DWP Child Maintenance Service and fell within section 14(3) ERA 1996, so section 13 did not apply. It also found the claimant had been paid his wages by the respondent despite bank statement naming variations, and that voluntarily returning a payment did not create a deduction by the respondent.
On pension deductions, the tribunal found employer pension contributions were not wages and did not accept that the claimant had opted out of the pension scheme. The March 2022 employee pension contribution was therefore authorised under the contract. The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the claimant had been absent from work from 21 December 2021 to 11 March 2022 without authorisation or medical certification, which the tribunal found amounted to gross misconduct permitting dismissal without notice.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 claimant withdrew the unfair dismissal claim at the hearing after accepting he did not have two years' service; it was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant withdrew his claim for unpaid sick pay; it was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerning 'CO: Payment' child maintenance deductions. The tribunal found the March 2022 deduction was within time but was an excepted deduction under section 14(3) ERA 1996, so section 13 did not apply. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim that wages had not been paid because bank payments appeared under variants of Lidl's name. The tribunal found the claimant had been paid the amounts owed and there had been no deduction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerning pension contributions. The tribunal found employer pension contributions were not wages and found the March 2022 employee pension contribution was authorised because the claimant had not opted out. | Dismissed | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 14(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Patel v Marquette Partners (UK) Ltd
- section 23(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Bear Scotland Ltd and ors v Fulton and ors
- Smith v Pimlico Plumbers Ltd
- University of Sunderland v Drossou
- Enable Care and Home Support Ltd v Pearson
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.