Employment Tribunal Decision: Unfair Dismissal Rejected, Wrongful Dismissal Upheld
📌 In brief
In this case, an employment tribunal ruled that the employer did not unfairly dismiss the worker but had to compensate them for wrongful dismissal and breaches of contract. The decision highlights the importance of proper authority when requiring employees to make business-related payments.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must not require an employee to make payments in connection with the business without proper authority under section 15 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
📖 What the law says
An employer cannot receive a payment from an employee unless the payment is required or authorised by a statutory provision or a relevant term in the employee's contract, or the employee has given written agreement or consent to the payment.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The Employment Tribunal dismissed claims of unfair dismissal and unauthorised wage deductions but upheld wrongful dismissal and breach of contract.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and unauthorised wage deductions but upheld claims of wrongful dismissal and breach of contract. The respondent was ordered to pay compensation for loss of earnings, notice pay, and a written statement of particulars.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed in Part
Case Number: 6025343/2025
- 1 -
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
London East Employment Tribunal (by CVP)
On:
22 and 23 April 2026
[part AM and PM on 23 April 2026 in chambers]
Before:
Employment Judge B [NAME] For the Claimant: [redacted]
In person For the Respondent: [redacted]
The Judgment of the Tribunal is that: 1.1 The claimant’s complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, in respect of alleged arrears of pay between January 2025 and May 2025, are not well founded and they are hereby dismissed. 1.2 The claimant’s complaints under section 15 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, insofar as they relate to payments made by the claimant to Mr [APPELLANT] [NAME] in January in the amount of £2499.00, and in March 2025 in the sum of £1600.00 at the direction of the respondent and in connection with the respondent’s business, are well founded and they succeed. The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £4,099.00, being the total amount of payments required to be made by the claimant in breach of section 15 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. This sum is payable on a net basis, without any deductions for tax or national insurance. In addition to making payment of the said amount to the claimant, the respondent is required to remit to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs any monies due and owing in respect of tax and national insurance relating to the sum payable to the claimant and shall account to the claimant for any such payment. The remainder
Case Number: 6025343/2025
- 2 - of the claimant’s complaints under section 15 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 are not well founded and they are hereby dismissed. 1.3 The claimant’s complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal pursuant to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 stands dismissed on the ground that the claimant had not been continuously employed for a period of not less than two years ending with the effective date of termination in accordance with the requirements under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 1.4 The claimant’s complaint that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed contrary to section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, by reason of asserting a statutory right relating to pay, is well founded and it succeeds. 1.5 The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant a compensatory award for unfair dismissal in respect of loss of earnings for July and August 2025, subject to a 70% reduction for contributory conduct, and the claimant is accordingly awarded the sum of £1,310.06 (this being £2,183.44 × 2 = £4,366.88, and thereafter £4,366.88 × 30% = £1,310.064). No compensatory award is made in respect of June 2025. No basic award is made. No grossing up for tax purposes is required. 1.6 The recoupment provisions set out in the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseekers’ Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/2349) do not apply in this case. 1.7 The claimant’s complaints of wrongful dismissal / breach of contract (notice pay) are well founded and the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £656.25, being one week’s statutory notice pay subject to any required deductions for tax and national insurance provided that the respondent remits any such amount to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and accounts to the claimant for any such payment. 1.8 The claimant’s complaint that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of particulars of employment to the claimant pursuant to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well founded and it succeeds. Pursuant to section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, the respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of £1,312.50, being two weeks’ gross pay. Approved By: Employment Judge B [NAME]: 23 April 2026
Notes
Summary reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written summary reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.
Case Number: 6025343/2025
- 3 - Public access to employment tribunal decisions
Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.
Recording and Transcription
Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules on Age Discrimination and Disability Adjustments
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Allows Unfair Dismissal Claim, But Compensation Reduced
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules on Disability Discrimination and Pay Statements
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Race Discrimination and Whistleblowing Claims
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair Dismissal and Breach of Contract Claims
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects All Claimant's Complaints Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Worker's Disability Discrimination Claim Dismissed by Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Claim Dismissed: No Attendance, Insufficient Service Period
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- Employer made unauthorised deductions from wages.
- Employer failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday pay.
- Employer did not provide a written statement of employment particulars as required by law.
- Employer treated the employee unfavourably due to their disability or requested unnecessary sick notes.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- Claim did not comply with procedural rules and had no reasonable chance of success.
- Employee failed to prove substantial long-term adverse effects on day-to-day activities for a disability claim.
- Employee contributed to their own dismissal through misconduct.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Employment Tribunal decided to award the claimant a compensatory award of £1,310.06 for automatic unfair dismissal.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant, ruling that the dismissal was automatically unfair and thus entitled to a compensatory award.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Sections 98 and 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the dismissal was automatically unfair due to the assertion of a statutory right relating to pay.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may also be entitled to a compensatory award if their dismissal is deemed automatically unfair.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify the exact evidence or documents that mattered.