← Back to searchEmployment Tribunal
- Case Number
- 6007531/2024
- Claimant
- Mr M Waring
- Respondent
- Fastrax Conveyors Rollers Ltd
- Venue
- England and Wales
- Hearing Date
- 29 July 2025
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Wood sitting alone
- Claimant Representative
- In Person
- Respondent Representative
- Mr Millar (Managing Director of Respondent)
- Compensation
- £1,123,076
- Jurisdiction
- Breach of ContractUnfair DismissalandUnlawful Deduction from Wages
Judgment
1. The claim for unfair dismissal is dismissed due to the claimant not having sufficient length of service with the respondent (this part of the claim was dismissed on a previous occasion but I could not locate a judgment). 2. The respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages for the period April 2023 in the sum of £3750. This sum is calculated gross of income tax and national insurance. The respondent is liable for any such payments. 3. The respondent was in breach of contract to pay notice pay to the claimant. The respondent must pay to the claimant the sum of £1875. This sum is calculated gross of income tax and national insurance. The respondent is liable for any such payments. 4. The respondent was in breach of its obligation under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to provide a statement of employment particulars. The respondent is to pay to the claimant the sum of £11,230,76, this being the equivalent of four week’s wages. Case Number: 6007531/2024 2 STATEMENT OF
22 words remaining
Reasons
Claims and Issues
1.
Page numbering referred to in square brackets in these reasons are to
pages in the bundle, unless otherwise stated.
2.
This is a claim which involves allegations of unauthorised deductions from
wages in respect of April 2023, and a failure to pay full notice pay upon
dismissal of the claimant by the respondent. I also considered a failure on
the part of the respondent to provide a statement of employment particulars
under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act (“the Act”).
3.
The claim had initially included one of unfair dismissal. However, this claim
was dismissed at an interlocutory stage on the grounds that the claimant did
not have the requisite two years of service with the respondent. I therefore
was not required to deal with this aspect of the claim. However, it was
accepted by the respondent at the hearing that the claimant had not been
summarily dismissed and was therefore entitled to notice pay. It was further
agreed between the parties that the appropriate notice period was 2 weeks.
4.
In essence, the claimant alleges that he was not paid approximately half his
wages for April, and was underpaid his notice pay, also by about 50%. The
rationale for this will be explained below. The respondent asserts that it paid
what was due to the claimant for April 2024, and in respect of his notice pay.
The issue revolves around the liability of the respondent to pay what I will
refer to as ‘dividend payments' to the claimant, although as will be explained
below, the labelling of these payments as dividends is itself problematic.
Procedure, Documents and Evidence Heard
5.
The Hearing took place on 30 June 2025. The claim was heard remotely by
video. At the outset of the hearing, I confirmed that I had all of the evidence
in order to make my decision. I had a hearing bundle which comprises 100
pages. I also had a witness statement from the claimant. Although Mr Millar
was present, no-one from the respondent had submitted a witness
statement. Mr Millar expressed surprise that he was required to provide a
witness statement. I reminded him of the directions that had been issued by