Case 3331889/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Chrol v Jessa Enterprises Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331889/2018
- Decision date
- 10 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Chrol
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Chrol said he worked for Jessa Enterprises Limited from 1 March 2018 to 19 April 2018 as a project co-ordinator, paid at £600 per week, and claimed unpaid wages, notice pay and overtime. He did not attend the hearing and gave no explanation for his absence. The respondent also did not attend orally, but it filed written representations saying the agreed wage was £2,500 per month, no overtime had been agreed, and the claimant did not want to work during the notice week.
The tribunal found there was no evidence of any agreement to pay overtime, so that part of the claim failed. It also found there was no contract of employment before it and no basis established for deductions from wages under s.13(1) ERA 1996. The respondent's case that it had paid £1,514.30 and that the claimant owed £1,125 for equipment and loans was rejected as a set-off against unpaid wages, because unpaid wages could not be reduced in that way.
On notice pay, the tribunal held that the claimant's employment had lasted more than one month and that he was therefore entitled to one week's notice under s.86(1)(a) ERA 1996. The tribunal also said the respondent could rely on equitable set-off in respect of the breach of contract element. The final judgment was that the respondent had made an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages in the gross sum of £1,153.84, payable net if tax and national insurance are accounted for through HMRC.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant also alleged overtime, but the tribunal found no agreement to work overtime. The respondent could not justify deductions by reference to equipment or loan set-off under s.13(1) ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,154 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one week's notice pay under s.86(1)(a) ERA 1996, but allowed equitable set-off against the respondent's cross-claim, so no separate award was made on this head. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,154
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.13(1) ERA 1996
- s.86(1)(a) ERA 1996
- equitable set-off
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.