Case 4102188/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Hood v Represented by Mr A Reid Solicitor Manser Saxon Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102188/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Hood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Neil Hood, was employed by Manser Saxon Limited from 1 August 2019 on a gross annual salary of £90,000, paid monthly at £7,500. He had a one-month notice period and an annual holiday entitlement of 30 days. The respondent did not attend the final hearing. The tribunal accepted the claimant's oral evidence and supporting documents, including payslips, expense records, and lender and bank material.
On the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the tribunal found that February 2020 salary had been earned but not paid, that the claimant worked until 20 March 2020 and was entitled to wages for that period after resigning with immediate effect, and that holiday pay accrued but untaken on termination was payable on a pro rata basis under the Working Time Regulations 1998. It calculated the gross sums due for those heads and treated the holiday pay as part of the wages claim rather than as a separate working time award.
On the breach of contract claim, the tribunal found that expenses totalling £8,483.82 had been properly incurred, approved, and not paid. It also held that the respondent's failure to pay salary and expenses was a repudiatory breach that entitled the claimant to accept termination and recover damages for the contractual notice period, bank and interest charges of £394.74, and half of increased mortgage interest of £1,405. It rejected the separate claim for charges incurred by Hood Property Limited because those losses belonged to a different legal entity.
The tribunal ordered payment of the sums awarded subject to the usual deductions for tax, national insurance, and any employee pension contributions where permitted, provided written notice was given and the sums were remitted to the appropriate authority. It reserved for 14 days the question of whether to impose a penalty under section 12A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, noting that the maximum potential penalty could be half of the total award of £36,314.53.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal upheld unpaid February 2020 wages, unpaid wages for 1 March 2020 to 20 March 2020, and holiday pay accrued but untaken on termination. Paragraph 34 records £18,503.97, but the component figures in paragraphs 30 to 33 total £18,530.97, which matches the overall total used later in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £18,531 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found a material breach of contract in non-payment of wages due and expenses incurred, accepted repudiation and termination by the claimant, and awarded damages for expenses, notice pay, bank charges and mortgage interest. The separate claim for Hood Property Limited charges was not included because the loss belonged to a different legal entity. | Upheld | — | £17,784 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £36,315
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulations 13, 13A and 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals (Extension of Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Order 1994
- sections 221-224 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 12A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
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.