Case 8000216/2024 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000216/2024 Held via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on October 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr A English v Hoxleigh Limited (in liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000216/2024
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000216/2024 Held via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on October 2024 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr A English
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAlan English started work for Hoxleigh Limited on 30 May 2023 as Head of Software and Integrations on a gross salary of £72,800 a year. He gave evidence that he was not paid any salary during the employment, despite raising the issue repeatedly and receiving assurances that payment and back pay would be made. The tribunal found his evidence measured, consistent and convincing, accepted his schedule of loss, and found that he resigned verbally on 1 December 2023 and later confirmed that resignation by letter dated 13 December 2023 because of non-payment of salary and the effect on him and his family.
On the wages claim, the tribunal held that Mr English had suffered unlawful deductions within section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On the agreed annual salary, he should have received £560 for the two days worked in May 2023 and £36,399.96 for the six months from 1 June to 1 December 2023, giving a total gross award of £36,959.96, subject to the appropriate deductions for income tax and national insurance. On holiday pay, the tribunal found he was entitled to 28 days' annual leave, had accrued 14 days over six months, had taken 10 days' paid leave, and therefore had 4 days' accrued untaken leave remaining at termination. Using a daily rate of £280, the tribunal awarded £1,120 gross under regulation 30(1)(b) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The tribunal also found that Hoxleigh had failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment as required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It noted that the claimant's successful claims fell within Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002 and that, although the minimum award would have been two weeks' pay, the circumstances justified the higher four-week award. The judge took account of the fact that the respondent's directors were experienced employers and that the failure was a breach of a legal obligation, and awarded £5,600, being four weeks' pay at £1,400 per week. The judgment did not set out a separate overall total, but the awards together total £43,679.96.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the claimant had not been paid salary throughout his employment and awarded gross unpaid wages subject to tax and national insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £36,960 |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal found the claimant had accrued 4 days' annual leave on termination and awarded payment in lieu of annual leave, gross and subject to tax and national insurance deductions. | Upheld | — | £1,120 |
| Other | Award made for failure to provide a written statement of particulars of employment. The tribunal applied section 38 Employment Act 2002 and awarded 4 weeks' pay because it considered the circumstances justified the higher award. | Upheld | — | £5,600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £43,680
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 30(1)(b) Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Schedule 5 Employment Act 2002
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.