Case 3322934/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the First v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3322934/2021
- Decision date
- 20 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the First
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by Employment Judge Alliott sitting alone on 9 January 2023. The First Respondent had entered voluntary liquidation and the liquidator did not participate. The tribunal also recorded that the Secretary of State had likely been made a party in error, and the claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed.
On the claimant's evidence, the tribunal found that he was not paid his salary for July and August 2021 and that there was no agreement that those months would be unpaid. It therefore upheld the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages and awarded £16,666.66 gross. The tribunal also found that an expenses claim for £911.42 had not been paid and that the claimant was contractually entitled to reimbursement, so that breach of contract claim succeeded.
For the termination claim, the tribunal rejected the suggestion that issues about the transfer of the claimant's equity in the company to the chairman, in order to secure a chairman's loan, amounted to fundamental breaches. It did find that non-payment of salary in July and August 2021, and uncertainty about whether September would be paid, were fundamental breaches of contract entitling the claimant to resign with immediate effect on 31 August 2021. The claimant had obtained comparable employment in January 2022, so the tribunal limited loss to four months and awarded £20,190.68 net damages for wrongful dismissal / breach of contract.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had an annual holiday entitlement of 27 days plus statutory bank holidays, with 3 carried-over days entering 2021. Applying the holiday year and bank holiday calculation set out in the reasons, it concluded that 20 days' accrued holiday remained untaken at termination. That yielded a gross holiday pay award of £7,692.31. The total amount awarded against the First Respondent was £45,461.07.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had not been paid salary for July and August 2021 and there was no agreement that those months would be unpaid. | Upheld | — | £16,667 |
| Breach of contract | This was the unpaid expenses claim for £911.42, which the tribunal found the claimant was contractually entitled to recover. | Upheld | — | £911 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the non-payment of salary in July and August 2021, together with uncertainty about September pay, amounted to fundamental breaches entitling the claimant to resign summarily on 31 August 2021. Damages were calculated on four months' loss at £5,047.67 net per month. | Upheld | — | £20,191 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had 20 days' accrued holiday untaken at termination and awarded the corresponding gross sum. | Upheld | — | £7,692 |
| Other | The claim against the Second Respondent, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, was dismissed because the tribunal considered the Secretary of State had probably been made a party in error. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £45,461
- across all upheld claims
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.