Case 3347220/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Watson v Oxford Virtual Markets Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3347220/2016
- Decision date
- 27 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for Oxford Virtual Markets Limited as a Senior Developer from 14 December 2006 until he resigned with immediate effect on 20 October 2016. The tribunal found that from the end of November 2015 until termination there were significant delays and shortfalls in salary payments, and that no payments were made in respect of tax, employee national insurance, or pension contributions. It accepted the claimant's evidence that he had remained an employee and had not agreed to become self-employed or to treat the payments as loans.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that the repeated delays and shortfalls, together with the failure to make the required deductions and the broken promises about payment, amounted to a fundamental breach of the express term to pay salary monthly in arrears and of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the claimant resigned in response to those breaches and had not affirmed the contract. The tribunal also held that there was no potentially fair reason for dismissal and that, in any event, no fair procedure had been followed, so the dismissal was unfair.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,311.00 and a compensatory award of £30,923.00 for financial loss and loss of statutory rights. It then applied a 25% uplift under s207A because the respondent had not complied with the ACAS Code in relation to the claimant's grievance, including failing to meet him, provide a formal response, or offer an appeal. That produced a compensatory award with uplift of £38,653.75 and an unfair dismissal award of £42,964.75.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded for two elements: salary shortfalls totalling £4,930.00 and £15,900.00 for tax and employee national insurance deductions that were not paid over to HMRC. The tribunal held that section 14 did not apply because the deductions were not made in accordance with the statutory PAYE obligation. The holiday pay claim also succeeded, with the tribunal finding that 20.5 days remained untaken at termination and awarding £3,546.50 at a daily rate of £173. The total award was £67,788.25.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal succeeded. The tribunal found a fundamental breach of the express term to pay monthly in arrears and of the implied term of trust and confidence, and held that the claimant resigned in response. The unfair dismissal compensation included a basic award of £4,311.00, a compensatory award of £30,923.00, and a 25% uplift to £38,653.75. | Upheld | — | £42,965 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded in respect of salary shortfalls and sums deducted from pay for tax and national insurance that were not passed to HMRC. The tribunal found £4,930.00 in salary shortfalls and £15,900.00 in unpaid tax and employee national insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £21,277 |
| Holiday pay | Succeeded for 20.5 days of untaken holiday on termination, assessed at £173 per day. | Upheld | — | £3,547 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £67,788
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,311
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £38,654
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Weston Excavating v Sharpe
- implied term of trust and confidence
- Woods v WM Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 14 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.