Abellio East Midlands Ltd v Mr K Thomas
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Michael Ford (Deputy Judge |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EAT 20 |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 31 January 2022 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down ABELLIO EAST MIDLANDS LTD v THOMAS
Page 1 [2022] EAT 20
© EAT 2022
Neutral Citation Number: [2022] EAT 20
Case No: EA-2020-000935-OO
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 28 January 2022
Before :
MICHAEL FORD QC, DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
ABELLIO EAST MIDLANDS LTD Appellant
- and -
MR K THOMAS Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MR R FITZPATRICK (instructed by Kennedys Law LLP) for the Appellant
MR K THOMAS for the Respondent in Person
Hearing date: 21 September 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down ABELLIO EAST MIDLANDS LTD v THOMAS
Page 2 [2022] EAT 20
© EAT 2022
SUMMARY
UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
The Claimant, who was employed by the respondent as Area Manager for the Leicester Area, agreed
to move to a new position as Area Manager for Nottingham and was told that he would receive an
increased salary to reflect the greater responsibilities in that role. The Claimant and Respondent failed
to agree the increased salary and the Claimant’s employment was eventually terminated. The tribunal
decided that the Claimant was entitled to a remedy in unjust enrichment, a quantum meruit payment,
for the work he did in the “entirely different” position in Nottingham. It decided that he should have
been paid an increased salary while in that position, and such a claim could be brought as an unlawful
deductions from wages claim under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Held (allowing the appeal). An unjust enrichment claim for a quantum meruit could not be brought
under Part II of the 1996 Act. Following Delaney v Staples [1992] 1 AC 687, the essential
characteristics of “wages” for the purpose of Part II are that they are work done or to be done under
a subsisting contract of employment. But where an individual was engaged under a worker’s contract,
and so could potentially bring a claim under Part II, a quantum meruit could only be brought in respect
of additional work which went beyond the scope of the existing contract. Moreover, claims for
quantum meruit with difficulty fit with the structure of a claim for unlawful deductions from wages.
The appeal was therefore allowed.
While the decision on Part II of the Act resolved the appeal, the tribunal’s conclusion that the work
at Nottingham was in an “entirely different position” or in an “entirely different role” was a sufficient
finding that the work being done in that role, at the Respondent’s request, was necessarily outside the
scope of the original contract. If the tribunal had jurisdiction under Part II of the 1996 Act, it would
therefore have been entitled to award the claimant a quantum merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial