Case 4108827/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Arthur v Angela McKee t/a Candy Land — 2019
- Case reference
- 4108827/2019
- Decision date
- 20 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Sorrell
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Arthur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Arthur worked for Angela McKee t/a Candy Land from 10 April 2015, became a supervisor and later reverted to a sales assistant role after informing the respondent that she was pregnant, and went on maternity leave in June 2018. The tribunal accepted that on 12 June 2019 HMRC told her that no earnings had been declared for her since November 2018 and that she had been overpaid universal credit by £1,594.93. The respondent did not enter a response or attend the hearing, and the tribunal found the claimant to be a credible witness whose evidence was largely corroborated by documents.
On illegality, the tribunal applied Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd, Enfield Technical Services v Payne and Patel v Mirza, and held that the claimant could enforce her contract. It found the illegality arose from the respondent's failure to declare the claimant's income, that denying the claim would not significantly advance the public policy against tax evasion, and that the claimant did not know of or participate in the illegality because she plausibly thought her maternity-related payments did not count as income. On constructive dismissal, applying Western Excavating, Malik v BCCI, Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland and Berriman, the tribunal found the respondent had breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence by not declaring earnings from November 2018 to 12 June 2019, had no reasonable cause for that failure, and had not given a sufficient justification in her message about accountants and HMRC.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed without notice. It awarded a basic award of £525.44 and a compensatory award of £4,884.09, including net loss of earnings to 22 October 2019, future loss, and £500 for loss of statutory rights. Recoupment regulations applied, with a prescribed element of £2,873.49 covering 12 June 2019 to 29 November 2019. The separate unlawful deduction claim succeeded because the claimant was not paid for four hours on 9 June 2019 and four hours on 10 June 2019, which the tribunal calculated at £65.68.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Held to be a constructive unfair dismissal without notice. The tribunal found the respondent breached mutual trust and confidence by failing to declare the claimant's earnings to HMRC from November 2018 until termination, and awarded a basic award of £525.44 plus a compensatory award of £4,884.09. | Upheld | — | £5,410 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages for 8 hours worked on 9 and 10 June 2019. The tribunal calculated the deduction at the minimum wage rate of £8.21 per hour. | Upheld | — | £66 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,475
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £525
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,884
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- Patel v Mirza three-stage test
- Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd
- Enfield Technical Services v Payne
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI
- Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation v Buckland
- Berriman v Delabole Slate Ltd
- Morrow v Safeway Stores plc
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.13 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.