Case 4112621/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v John Rae Limited (in Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 4112621/2018
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge JG
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had worked for the respondent and its predecessor since 1984, with continuity of employment. After the share sale on 12 May 2017, he continued as a director and manager under terms found by the tribunal to include a net salary of £52,000 per year and continuing contractual benefits including pension contributions, paid annual leave, medical insurance, wifi and call out allowances, with a later agreed car allowance. The tribunal found that those variations were ratified after the share purchase agreement.
The tribunal found that the respondent repeatedly failed to pay the claimant the wages due under the contract after the share purchase. It accepted the claimant's evidence that arrears were repeatedly promised but not paid. In February 2018, the claimant was told to leave the premises, to resign as a director, and that payment of arrears would not be made; he was also threatened with a fraud complaint. The tribunal held that the continuing non-payment of wages, the instruction to leave, the refusal to pay arrears, and the threats were material repudiatory breaches of contract and a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that the 23 February 2018 events were also a last straw.
The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to accept the repudiation and resign, and that his work from home while arranging handover did not amount to affirmation of the contract. It therefore found constructive dismissal and held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the respondent had acted unreasonably in dismissing him, had not followed a procedure, and had threatened fraud complaints without giving details. It awarded a basic award of £14,670 and a compensatory award of £500 for loss of statutory rights.
The tribunal separately upheld the wrongful dismissal claim and awarded £8,663.01 in lieu of 12 weeks' notice. It also upheld the breach of contract claims and awarded the contractual sums found due for unpaid wages, pension contribution, holiday pay, medical insurance premium, car allowance, wifi allowance and call out allowance, producing the contractual award components set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal awarded the claimant the net sum of £8,663.01 in lieu of 12 weeks' notice of dismissal. | Upheld | — | £8,663 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed under section 95(1)(c) and section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The award comprised a basic award of £14,670 and a compensatory award of £500 for loss of statutory rights. The reasons section contains apparent date typos referring to 2019, but the operative findings and order are directed to March 2018. | Upheld | — | £15,170 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal upheld breach of contract claims for unpaid wages, employer pension contribution, accrued holiday pay, medical insurance premium, car allowance, wifi allowance and call out allowance. The individual sums awarded were £17,129.96, £7,550, £1,166.66, £4,116, £10,000, £833 and £2,500 respectively. | Upheld | — | £43,296 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £67,129
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £14,670
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £500
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- constructive dismissal
- repudiatory breach
- implied term of trust and confidence
- last straw
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.