Case 4100549/2024 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 4100549/2024 Heard at Edinburgh on the th of August 2024 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr R Doyle
Mr R Doyle was employed by Touch-Less Hygiene Ltd from 20 March 2023 until he resigned with immediate effect on 20 October 2023. His written contract set a salary of £26,000 gross per annum, provided 28 days' paid annual leave, and included additional shift payments of £125 for up to 4 extra hours, together with commission only for business secured from new customers introduced by him. The ET1 advanced claims for arrears of pay, a commission payment, compensation for untaken annual leave, and notice pay.
The tribunal found that the respondent deducted the equivalent of 2 days' net pay from the claimant's final wages and that the deduction was authorised by the contract and permitted by section 14 ERA 1996. It also found that, as at 20 October 2023, the claimant had already taken 2 days of paid annual leave in excess of his accrued entitlement for the relevant part of the holiday year, that the University of Edinburgh was a pre-existing customer, and that the claimant had no entitlement to commission on that business or to notice pay after resigning with immediate effect.
The decisive issue was limitation. The claimant first contacted ACAS on 4 December 2023, the early conciliation period ended on 15 January 2024, and the primary time limit was extended to 1 March 2024. The complaints were not presented to the tribunal until 1 May 2024. The tribunal found there was no evidence that it had not been reasonably practicable for the complaints to be presented in time, and nothing that prevented presentation before 1 March 2024. It therefore held that the claimant lacked title to present and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction under section 111(2)(a) and section 111(2)(b) ERA 1996, so all claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It added that, had jurisdiction existed, the claimant would in any event have failed to prove entitlement to the sums sought.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of pay under section 13 ERA 1996. The tribunal dismissed it for want of jurisdiction after finding that the deduction of 2 days' net pay from final salary was authorised by the written contract and was also a permitted deduction under section 14 ERA 1996; it found no balance of wages remained due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for commission said to be due on business from the University of Edinburgh. The tribunal dismissed it for want of jurisdiction and recorded that the contract entitled commission only on business from new clients introduced by the claimant, whereas the University was a pre-existing long-established customer of the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for compensation for accrued but untaken paid annual leave. The tribunal dismissed it for want of jurisdiction after finding that, by the effective date of termination, the claimant had already taken 2 days' paid annual leave in excess of his proportionate entitlement for the relevant part of the holiday year, and that no untaken leave remained outstanding. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay. The tribunal dismissed it for want of jurisdiction and recorded that the claimant resigned with immediate effect and had no entitlement to notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
The 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.
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.