Case 4102690/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Jeffrey v Avocet Agritech Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4102690/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Jeffrey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T Jeffrey brought claims for notice pay, unpaid holiday pay, unpaid wages, expenses, and unfair dismissal. The hearing took place by CVP; the respondent did not attend, and the tribunal proceeded in its absence under Rule 47. When the claimant mentioned a possible whistleblowing case at the outset, the tribunal explained that no such claim was on the ET1 and the claimant chose not to seek an adjournment or amendment, so the case proceeded only as an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal held that Avocet Agritech Ltd breached the claimant's contract by failing to give the statutory minimum notice period of three weeks incorporated by section 86(4) ERA 1996, and ordered £1,604.69 net damages. It also found unauthorised deductions from wages in respect of ten days' accrued untaken holiday outstanding at termination and in respect of unpaid wages from 1 March to 17 April 2020, ordering £1,917.81 and £7,195.83 respectively. The awards at items 2 and 3 were expressed gross of tax and national insurance.
The breach of contract claim for £1,511.31 expenses was dismissed as not well founded. The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal complaint but deferred remedy to a separate hearing. For remedy purposes it found that the claimant had no entitlement to a basic award under s.122(4) ERA 1996, that the dismissal was neither caused nor contributed to by any action of the claimant for s.123(6), and that no Polkey reduction was to be applied because it had not been proved that a fair dismissal, or lawful ending within any particular timescale, would have occurred.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the contract by failing to give the statutory minimum notice period of three weeks incorporated by section 86(4) ERA 1996; the award was net damages. | Upheld | — | £1,605 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of ten days' accrued untaken holiday outstanding at the termination of employment on 17 April 2020; the award was expressed gross of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,918 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of unpaid wages for the period from 1 March to 17 April 2020; the award was expressed gross of tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £7,196 |
| Breach of contract | The claim for breach of contract in respect of expenses said to total £1,511.31 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed but held remedy over to a separate hearing. It recorded that there was no entitlement to a basic award under s.122(4) ERA 1996, that the dismissal was neither caused nor contributed to by the claimant for s.123(6), and that no Polkey reduction applied. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,718
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.86(4) ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.122(4) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Polkey reduction
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.