Mr P Cusick v T J Morris Ltd T/a Home Bargains: 2413895/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 2021 |
| Citation | 2413895/2020 |
| Published date | 01 July 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
Case Number: 2413895/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr P Cusick
Respondent: T J Morris Ltd t/a Home Bargains
Heard at: Manchester (remote public hearing via CVP)
On: 1 June 2021
Before: Judge BJ Doyle
Representation
Claimant: Ms L Gould, counsel
Respondent: Mr D Northall, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The claimant’s complaint of unauthorised deductions from (or non-payment of)
wages contrary to Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded. The
claim is upheld.
REASONS
Introduction
1. This is the reserved judgment of the Tribunal with written reasons.
2. The claim is about whether the respondent was entitled to withhold wages from
the claimant LGV driver during a period when he had been disqualified from
driving, but in circumstances in which a court had suspended the
disqualification pending an appeal, which was ultimately successful.
3. The claim contains a single complaint of non-payment of wages during a period
from March to August 2020. It has been treated throughout as being a
complaint under Part 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
4. Early conciliation commenced on 10 July 2020 and ended on 10 August 2020.
The ET1 and particulars of claim were presented to the Tribunal on 9
Case Number: 2413895/2020
2
September 2020. The ET3 and grounds of resistance were presented on 16
October 2020.
5. The claim had been automatically listed with standard case management
orders at service of the claim upon the respondent on 19 September 2020 for
a final hearing of 1 hour commencing at 2.15 pm on 1 June 2020.
6. In reading the papers on the day, it was immediately apparent to this Tribunal
that this was no ordinary “Wages Act” claim for which a 1 hour time allocation
would have been appropriate. Fortunately, the parties were professionally
represented; there were only two witnesses (whose evidence had been
committed to written witness statements); the facts were in large part
uncontested; and both counsel (to whom the Tribunal is grateful) had prepared
helpful written submissions. In the event, we were able to conclude the giving
and testing of evidence and the presentation of submissions in just over 2.5
hours.
7. The Tribunal then reserved its judgment as to liability and it deferred further
consideration of remedy until liability had been determined.
The evidence
8. The Tribunal had before it an agreed bundle of documents comprising a total
of 323 pages, inclusive of a 7 page index. There were 97 separate documents
before the Tribunal. Reserving judgment has furnished the Tribunal with a
better opportunity to read the documents. References to the bundle are in
square brackets [ ] below.
9. Within the documents bundle were also the witness statements of the claimant,
Mr Cusick [287-305], and, for the respondent, Mr McLoughlin (the respondent’s
Chief Financial Officer and Company Secretary since 1997) [306-310].
10. Both counsel were agreed that the factual matrix is in very large part
uncontested. Little if anything depends upon an assessment of the witnesses
and their evidence.
11. Nevertheless, the claimant presented as an open, honest and credible witness.
12. The respondent’s witness, Mr McLoughlin, had not been directly involved in the
decisions on the ground that were being taken in relation to the claimant and
his wages. As a result, he was not always able to answer questions that were
being asked of him about the immediate facts of the matter as opposed to
issues of policy and practice. The Tribunal makes and intends no criticism of
this witness at all, who endeavoured to assist the Tribunal where he was able
to do so.
13. In places the evidence on both sides ranged more widely than was strictly
necessary to resolve the immediate dispute of which the Tribunal was seized.
The Tribunal has taken care to make only such findings of fact as are necessary
for its purpose. It also took pains to ensure that the parties had a full opportunity
to put its evidence (and the testing of it) to the Tribunal.
To continue reading
Request your trial