Case 3321088/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J West v Alith Vore Consulting Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3321088/2019
- Decision date
- 4 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen Representation
- Venue
- Watford ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J West
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr West had worked for True North Human Capital Ltd from 2010 and transferred to Alith Vore Consulting Limited on 7 December 2018 under TUPE. The tribunal found that his earlier company, The Search House, was dormant during his employment with the respondent and was not trading or competing. By December 2018 he was chasing unpaid salary, pension contributions and evidence of life assurance cover, and by spring 2019 the relationship had deteriorated over the continuing non-payment and criticism of his performance.
The tribunal found that he resigned on 29 May 2019 because salary had not been paid and he did not accept that payment would resume on a monthly basis. It held that this was a constructive unfair dismissal and a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The tribunal rejected the respondent's reliance on the claimant's dormant company, alleged misuse of LinkedIn information, post-resignation comments, and the removal of laptop user profiles as reasons to reduce compensation.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded unpaid net salary for April and May 2019 of £8,776.27, notice pay of £12,654.48 for 12 weeks, and holiday pay of £1,051.68 for seven untaken days. It also awarded £437.27 for the May 2019 pension contribution, £366.68 for expenses, £557.28 for replacement life assurance, and £500 for loss of statutory rights; it found no loss for medical insurance or income protection and made no ACAS uplift.
For the unfair dismissal award, the tribunal applied the compensatory award approach under section 123 ERA 1996, considered contributory fault and Polkey, but found no contributory fault from the dormant Search House, the LinkedIn information or the post-resignation comments. It accepted that performance had declined and assessed a 10% chance of dismissal after three months if a performance programme had been imposed, so it awarded three months in full and three months at 90%. The basic award was £4,275 and the compensatory award was £26,047.13; the total award was grossed up to £57,098.95 and recoupment did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal; the tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,275 and a compensatory award of £26,047.13. | Upheld | — | £30,322 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Awarded as 12 weeks' notice pay after the claimant resigned. | Upheld | — | £12,654 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Agreed net salary for April and May 2019; the pension contribution was addressed separately in the remedy. | Upheld | — | £8,776 |
| Holiday pay | Seven untaken days were found due on termination after allowing the rolled-over days and days taken. | Upheld | — | £1,052 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £57,099
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,275
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £26,047
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.123 ERA 1996
- s.123(4) ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- Polentarutti v Autokraft Ltd
- W Devis v Atkins
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.401 ITEPA 2003
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.