Case 3312559/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr Anthony Lawson (2) Mr Alimamy Kabba v Tri-Fit Gym Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3312559/2021
- Decision date
- 12 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr Anthony Lawson (2) Mr Alimamy Kabba
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case remotely on 1 June 2022 before Employment Judge Tobin sitting alone. Mr Lawson and Mr Kabba said that, after the gyms closed in March 2020, they continued to work for Tri-Fit Gym Limited while receiving payments described in the correspondence as advances of bonus payments. The tribunal found that neither claimant qualified for the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme in the first lockdown, but it accepted that both worked during the lockdown period on tasks including installing equipment, marketing, rota preparation and recruitment preparation.
The tribunal found that the written agreements signed in June 2020 were clear: the sums were advances to be repaid from future bonuses, and if the claimants left the business before repayment they would be liable to repay the balance. It rejected the claimants' evidence that there had been a separate understanding that the sums were not loans or that repayment would only arise if they voluntarily resigned. On the tribunal's construction, the word 'leave' covered departure from the employment whether voluntary or involuntary, and the agreements were therefore enforceable as written.
The unlawful deduction from wages claims were dismissed. The tribunal held that the final letters signed by each claimant provided the written consent required for deductions from wages under s.13 ERA 1996. The holiday pay claims were also dismissed because the value of accrued annual leave had already been taken into account in the agreed figures. The wrongful dismissal claims failed because each claimant was entitled to only one week's notice under the contract and/or s.86 ERA 1996, and the tribunal found that appropriate notice had been given.
The pension contribution claims were upheld at the agreed figures of £350.77 for Mr Lawson and £424.07 for Mr Kabba. The respondent's contract claim also succeeded. After crediting the pension contributions, the tribunal held that Mr Lawson owed £3,803.01 and Mr Kabba owed £1,207.90 under the advance-of-bonus agreements.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Combined claim by both claimants for January 2021 and March 2021 pay deductions. The tribunal held the written agreements and the final letters authorised deductions from final wages. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Combined notice-pay claim. The tribunal held each claimant was entitled to one week's notice under the contract and/or s.86 ERA 1996 and found appropriate notice had been given. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Combined claim for accrued and untaken holiday pay under reg. 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal held the value had already been taken into account in the agreed figures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Mr Lawson's contractual pension contribution claim. The respondent accepted liability and the sum was agreed at the start of the hearing. | Upheld | — | £351 |
| Breach of contract | Mr Kabba's contractual pension contribution claim. The respondent accepted liability and the sum was agreed at the start of the hearing. | Upheld | — | £424 |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's contract claim against Mr Lawson. The tribunal held the advance-of-bonus agreement required repayment on departure and found this balance outstanding after crediting the pension contribution. |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.14 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.25 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.3 Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- Carmichael v National Power plc
- Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society
- Hooper v British Railway Board
- Daniels v Lloyds Bank PLC
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.