Case 4105618/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Cadden v Represented by: Mr R Turnbull - Solicitor New Forest Communications — 2018
- Case reference
- 4105618/2016
- Decision date
- 11 October 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laura Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Cadden
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBefore reaching the merits, the tribunal resolved the preliminary issue of whether the claimant was employed by New Forest Communications or by Pointshift Ltd. It held that the exchange of draft contracts, the handbook, wage slips, the payment arrangements, and Mr Walker's level of control pointed to a contract of employment with the respondents, despite the claimant's access to the Pointshift bank account and his status as a director and shareholder. The tribunal therefore found it had jurisdiction over the claims.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the claimant was constructively dismissed under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The contractual term in issue was payment of salary on or around the 20th of each month. It found that June 2016 wages were paid late, July 2016 wages were not paid by 28 July when the claimant first resigned with notice, and August and September wages were also unpaid when he resigned immediately on 20 September. The tribunal accepted that non-payment of wages was a fundamental breach and that it was a significant reason for both resignations; it rejected the suggestion that the £7,500 taken from the bank account defeated the claim, finding that it was used to reimburse agreed relocation expenses.
The tribunal then assessed remedy. It made a basic award, a compensatory award, and added £300 for loss of statutory rights. It accepted that the claimant had mitigated in part by setting up his own businesses, but held that he should have drawn income from IT work from around December 2016, reducing the compensatory element to two months' net pay of £7,000. It declined Polkey and contributory fault deductions, holding that the matters relied on by the respondents arose after the claimant had already accepted the repudiatory breach, and that the pre-resignation conduct did not justify a finding that dismissal would have occurred in any event.
The tribunal also upheld the unpaid wages claim, finding that August and September 2016 salary, £3,500 per month, had not been paid and that the claimant remained entitled to those sums. It upheld the breach of contract claim for relocation expenses, finding an agreement by Mr Walker to reimburse the claimant for moving to England and awarding the balance after crediting the £7,500 already taken from Pointshift's bank account. Finally, it upheld the Working Time Regulations claim for 8.5 days of accrued but untaken leave at termination. The final orders were £15,682.50 for unfair dismissal, £7,000 for unpaid wages, £1,514.14 for breach of contract, and £1,372.75 for holiday pay.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive dismissal under s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal found failure to pay wages on time in July 2016, and then non-payment of August and September wages, amounted to fundamental breaches. The final award table and order state a basic award of £8,382.50 and a compensatory award of £7,000, plus £300 for loss of statutory rights; para 171 of the reasons refers to £8,352.50 for the basic award, so the output follows the final order. | Upheld | — | £15,683 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under s.13 ERA 1996 for unpaid salary. The tribunal found the claimant was due £3,500 per month and had not been paid for August and September 2016. | Upheld | — | £7,000 |
| Breach of contract | The claim concerned relocation expenses for work in England. The tribunal found Mr Walker agreed that the respondents would reimburse those costs, and awarded the balance after crediting the £7,500 already taken from the Pointshift bank account. | Upheld | — | £1,514 |
| Holiday pay | Claim under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for leave accrued but not taken on termination. The tribunal found 8.5 days remained outstanding. Para 203 of the reasons refers to £1,373.17, but the dispositive order awards £1,372.75; the output follows the order. | Upheld | — | £1,373 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £25,569
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £8,383
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £7,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- Ministry of Defence HQ Defence Dental Service v Kettle
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating v Sharp
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- s.123(4) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 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.