Miss A Sedgmore v Magic Brands Ltd — 2025

Miss A Sedgmore brought a claim about unpaid wages after leaving Magic Brands Ltd. Although her ET1 referred to arrears of pay and also mentioned breach of contract, the tribunal held that the pleaded claim was properly understood as a statutory claim for unauthorised deduction from wages under s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had earned two weeks' pay, covering work done between 16 and 30 June 2024, in the sum of £1,166 gross.

The central factual dispute was whether the claimant had been released from her three-month notice obligation on 1 July 2024. The claimant said Ms Norman agreed she could leave early if she returned the laptop and completed a handover; Ms Norman denied that and said the claimant simply said she was done. The tribunal preferred Ms Norman's evidence, found there had been no agreement to vary the written notice term, and found that the claimant was in breach of contract when she said she would not work the remainder of her notice.

The tribunal then considered whether the respondent could lawfully retain the earned wages. It held that the respondent was not entitled to rely on set-off against a statutory wages claim for losses said to arise from the claimant's breach of notice. It also rejected reliance on clause 5.3 of the contract, finding that the clause covered sums such as overpayments and did not extend to sums allegedly owed because of a failure to work notice. On that basis, the claim for unauthorised deduction from wages was well founded.

The tribunal recorded that the respondent had started County Court proceedings for losses said to arise from the claimant's early departure, including an invoice for £3,500 from Ms Norman, but made no findings on those losses because they were not necessary to determine the tribunal claim and would be dealt with in the county court proceedings. The tribunal ordered Magic Brands Ltd to pay the claimant the gross sum of £1,166.