In person For the v Respondent — 2019

The tribunal found that the parties had agreed, in substance, that the claimant would work until 15 March 2018, would remain paid until 6 April 2018, and would receive a £5,000 redundancy payment if he had satisfactorily completed or handed over his outstanding work. On the tribunal's construction of the 3 March 2018 email, the arrangement also included waiver of the claimant's loan of £10,165.72, with any 2017 bonus balance over that figure to be paid later in 2018. The tribunal accepted that the email recorded the principal terms of the agreement, and concluded that the respondent's failure to reply meant there was no reason to displace the claimant's version of the terms recorded in writing.

On the facts, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had done some handover work and had continued to deal with certain matters remotely, but it found that he did not fully perform his side of the bargain. In particular, there were outstanding matters, including SCH, Providence Court and Bemerton work, where the tribunal found the claimant had not properly completed or explained the position before leaving. The tribunal considered that some criticism of the claimant was unfair, including in relation to Deltec, but it held that there was still work that should have been finished or properly handed over during the notice period. As a result, the contractual redundancy payment was not due and the loan waiver condition was not satisfied.

The tribunal distinguished that position from the notice pay claim. It found that the respondent did not request the claimant's physical return to work until after the notice period had expired, and that the claimant had continued to perform some work remotely between 16 March and 6 April 2018. It therefore held that the claimant remained entitled to notice pay of £1,836 for that period. For the statutory redundancy issue, the tribunal held that the claimant's failure to attend work could not reasonably be construed as a resignation, particularly because the parties had agreed that he need not physically attend if his work had been sufficiently completed and because he continued to work remotely. It therefore upheld the statutory redundancy payment claim of £3,912 and the holiday pay claim of £403.80.

On the counterclaim, the tribunal held that the loan of £10,165.72 remained due because the claimant had not met the conditions for waiver. It then offset the sums owed by the respondent for statutory redundancy, notice pay and holiday pay, totalling £6,151.80, against the loan, and ordered the claimant to pay the balance of £4,013.92 to the respondent.