Case 4111122/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Lowe v Racing Falcons Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111122/2021
- Decision date
- 29 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Young
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Lowe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningTimothy Lowe’s unfair dismissal claim had already been withdrawn at a preliminary hearing on 6 December 2021, so the hearing on 11 July 2022 addressed unpaid wages, holiday pay, notice pay, set-off, and the section 38 award for failure to provide written particulars. The tribunal found that Lowe was employed by Racing Falcons Limited as an assistant falconer from 7 January 2021 to 12 May 2021, that no written statement of terms and conditions had been provided, and that his gross pay was £21,000 per year, with net pay of £6,104.72 for 7 January to 30 April 2021 and an average net weekly pay of £381.54.
On wages, the tribunal accepted that no May 2021 wages had been paid and that there was no evidence of any unpaid suspension. It found that Lowe had worked 10 days in May 2021 up to termination and awarded £763.08 net as unpaid wages. On holiday pay, it held that the holiday year was deemed to have started on 7 January 2021, that Lowe was entitled to 28 days' holiday in the year, that 9.33 days had accrued by 12 May 2021, and that no holidays had been taken. It therefore awarded £711.95 net holiday pay.
On notice pay, the tribunal rejected the respondent’s case that Lowe had been dismissed for gross misconduct or had resigned. It found the evidence of threatening behaviour, suspension without pay, and CCTV support was not made out, and held that there was no sufficient breach of contract by Lowe to remove his entitlement to notice. One week’s notice was therefore due. The formal order awards £381.95 for notice pay, although the reasons at paragraph 30 calculate one week’s net pay as £381.54.
The respondent’s attempt to withhold sums for alleged damage to a caravan failed. The tribunal held there was no written contractual term authorising deduction, no statutory basis for the set-off, no written consent from Lowe, and no contract claim before the tribunal because none had been included in the ET3 response. Finally, because no written statement of particulars had been provided by the start of employment and there were no exceptional circumstances, the tribunal made the minimum section 38 Employment Act 2002 award of two weeks' gross pay, £808.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded as net wages due for 1-12 May 2021; the tribunal found no evidence of unpaid suspension and no May wages payment. | Upheld | — | £763 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded as net holiday pay accrued but untaken to the termination date under the Working Time Regulations 1998. | Upheld | — | £712 |
| Breach of contract | Damages for notice pay. The formal order awards £381.95, although the reasons at paragraph 30 calculate one week's net pay as £381.54. | Upheld | — | £382 |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for failure to provide written particulars of employment; the tribunal found no exceptional circumstances and awarded the minimum two weeks' gross pay. | Upheld | — | £808 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,665
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- Rule 23 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Working Time Regulations 1998
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.