Case 6017013/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dr Simon Jones v Scholars School System, Part of UK Curriculum Accreditation Body — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017013/2024
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr Simon Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Dr Simon Jones, brought a complaint under section 13(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from his wages. He had resigned on 3 May 2024, giving 14 weeks' notice with a proposed termination date of 31 August 2024, and was placed on garden leave from 24 May 2024. The Respondent argued his entitlement to salary and holiday pay ceased earlier than 31 August 2024 and denied any unlawful deduction. The Respondent also sought to bring an employer's contract counterclaim in respect of an alleged overpayment.
The Tribunal held that the contractual notice clause requiring "not less than one academic terms (12 weeks) prior written notice" set a minimum, not a cap, so the Claimant's 14-week notice was validly given. Applying the principle from Riordan v War Office and Harris and Russell Ltd v Slingsby, once valid notice was given it could only be shortened or extended by mutual consent, and there was no evidence of any such agreement. The Tribunal accepted that Mr Bhatti had accepted the resignation and that the effective date of termination was 31 August 2024, a conclusion supported by Ms Strader's emails of 21 and 22 May 2024 confirming garden leave and salary payments through August.
The Tribunal found that the Respondent had made an unauthorised deduction from the Claimant's wages in breach of section 13 ERA 1996. The Respondent's counterclaim was dismissed because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear an employer's contract claim where the employee had not brought a breach of contract claim. Remedy was adjourned to a subsequent remedy hearing listed for 12 September 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal found the Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to s.13 ERA 1996. Remedy was adjourned to a separate remedy hearing on 12 September 2025, so no monetary award is set in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Respondent's employer's contract counterclaim (in respect of an alleged overpayment) was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, because the Claimant had not brought a breach of contract claim, only an unlawful deduction from wages claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 13(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 24(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 86(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Beadnell v James Howden and Co Ltd ET Case No.71141/95
- Riordan v War Office [1961] 1 WLR 210
- Harris and Russell Ltd v Slingsby [1973] ICR 454
- Rule 41(3) Employment Tribunal Procedural Rules 2024
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.