Case 3306615/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Brandon McLeod-Miller v Made to Web Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3306615/2020
- Decision date
- 6 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Fowell
- Panel members
- Ms J Costley, Ms I Sood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Brandon McLeod-Miller
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Brandon McLeod-Miller worked as a Senior Web Developer for Made to Web Limited from 9 September 2019 on a salary of £55,000 a year. The case concerned his work on the Prince Visa project, his resignation with immediate effect on 30 March 2020, and claims for constructive dismissal, sex discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages, notice pay, holiday pay, and the respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract.
The tribunal dismissed constructive dismissal because Mr McLeod-Miller had less than two years' service. It also recorded the notice pay breach of contract complaint as dismissed "on withdrawal". The sex discrimination claim failed because the tribunal found that the comparison with Ms Lewis did not show treatment because of sex: she was self-employed, remained in a different position from the claimant after he had left, and the respondent wanted to keep her, which explained the difference in payments.
The tribunal upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim. It found there was no contractual or written basis for withholding pay, rejected the suggestion of any collateral agreement to defer wages until completion of the project, and found an error in the payroll calculation because the monthly pay was below the contractual monthly amount. It held that the unpaid March 2020 wages and earlier shortfalls formed a continuing series of deductions, and awarded £6,833.75 after crediting the £500 paid in April 2020.
The holiday pay claim also succeeded. The tribunal accepted that 11 days' holiday pay were outstanding and calculated the sum at £1,675.74 using a daily rate derived from the corrected pay figures. The respondent's counterclaim failed because the tribunal found that non-payment of wages was a fundamental breach of contract entitling the claimant to resign, that negligence was not proved, and that the commercial risk of the project lay with the company. The total award was £8,509.49.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had less than two years' service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claimant's notice pay claim; the dispositive section described it as dismissed "on withdrawal". | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of sex; Ms Lewis was self-employed and in different circumstances from the claimant. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld for underpayment of wages, including payroll shortfalls and unpaid March 2020 wages, less the £500 paid in April 2020. | Upheld | — | £6,834 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld under the Working Time Regulations 1998 for 11 days' outstanding holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,676 |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's counterclaim for breach of contract, alleging negligence and loss on the Prince Visa project, was dismissed. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,509
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13(1) ERA
- s.13 Equality Act
- fundamental breach of contract
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.