Case 3321594/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Millington v Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs — 2021
- Case reference
- 3321594/2019
- Decision date
- 19 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Millington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant’s terms of employment incorporated HMRC’s pay guidance, including the documents referred to as HR 41080 and HR 41062. It accepted that those provisions governed how pay was calculated where an employee moved between the London and National pay areas, and it relied on the appointment documentation and section 1 statement as supporting incorporation. The tribunal also referred to Alexander v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd and Hussain v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust when considering whether the policy wording was apt to have contractual effect.
On the facts, the claimant had moved voluntarily from the London office at Custom House to the Reading office in October 2017, whereas the tribunal distinguished his position from colleagues who had been required to move under the respondent’s reorganisation. It accepted evidence that Reading was not within the London pay area and concluded that, on transfer, the claimant’s pay properly moved to National pay. The tribunal found that the claimant had been paid the wages properly payable to him and that there had been no unauthorised deduction within s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim of unlawful deduction from wages was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Alexander v Standard Telephones and Cables Ltd
- Hussain v Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust
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.