Miss A Knights v Wrights of Welywn Garden City Ltd: 3324760/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 August 2020 |
| Citation | 3324760/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 14 September 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Working Time Regulations |
Case Number: 3324760/2019
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Miss A Knights v
Wrights of Welywn Garden City
Limited
Heard at: Watford On: 6 and 7
August 2020
Before: Employment Judge Hyams, sitting alone
Appearances:
For the claimant: In person
For the respondent: Mr H Sood, of counsel
JUDGMENT
1. The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal succeeds. She was dismissed within
the meaning of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA
1996”), and that dismissal was unfair.
2. The claimant’s conduct was such as to justify a reduction in the financial
compensation payable to her under sections 119 and 123 of that Act. The
awards made under those sections are reduced by 25%.
3. The basic award within the meaning of section 119 to which the claimant is
entitled is £1,968.75.
4. The compensatory award to which the claimant is £5,739.81, f rom which will
need to be deducted income tax and national insurance contributions under
regulations 37 and 37A of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003,
SI 2003/2682.
Case Number: 3324760/2019
2
REASONS
Introduction
(1) The claims
1 In these proceedings, the claimant originally claimed that she had been dismissed
constructively, i.e. within the meaning of section 95(1)(c) of the Employment
Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”), that that dismissal was unfair, and that she was
owed wages in the form of an unpaid commission payment.
2 At the start of the hearing before me, on 6 August 2020, the claimant said that she
had been paid all but £30 of the outstanding commission owed to her, and that
she was not pressing that claim. She said that she was withdrawing it and
accepted that it would as a result be dismissed by me on its withdrawal.
(2) The issues
3 The claimant was employed by the respondent from 10 February 2014 to 11
October 2019, when her resignation on notice took eff ect. By the time of the
claimant’s resignation, she was employed as the Lettings Manager at the
respondent’s branch at Welwyn Garden City.
4 The factual situation was in large part not disputed, although during the course of
the hearing before me on 6 August 2020, there was some cross-examination and
several material matters were clarified by the oral evidence of the parties. By the
end of the first day of the hearing, 6 August 2020, the issues which I was required
to determine were these:
4.1 Was the claimant dismissed within the meaning of section 95(1)(c) of the ERA
1996, or did she simply resign? If she was so dismissed, then the respondent
accepted that that dismissal was unfair. Accordingly, the only other question
was this:
4.2 If the claim of unfair dismissal succeeded, what remedy should the claimant
receive? In this regard, the claimant’s losses were limited since she had, on
10 February 2020, obtained employment in which she earned as much as she
had earned with the respondent. However, on the facts the question arose
whether the claimant’s conduct which led to the conduct of the respondent in
response to which the claimant resigned was such as to justify a reduction in
the amount of the basic award payable under section 119 of the ERA 1996
and/or the amount of the compensatory award payable under section 123 of
that Act.
To continue reading
Request your trial