Claimant v The Fragrance Shop
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the £19.65 hourly rate in the contract was a typographical error by the respondent (should have been £9.65). The claimant knew or should have known of the mistake given the substantial difference in pay received over a year, yet did nothing. The tribunal concluded the claimant opportunistically sought to claim more money than he ever thought entitled to, and the mistaken term was not binding between the parties.
Facts
The claimant worked part-time (12 hours per week) for a fragrance retailer. His written contract stated an hourly rate of £19.65, which was a typographical error by the respondent (should have been £9.65). The claimant signed the contract but had no further access to it or his payslips. He was paid at the lower rate for over a year before raising the issue. The respondent argued this was a clerical mistake and the claimant should have known he was being paid significantly less than the contractual rate.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unlawful deduction of wages. The judge found the £19.65 figure was a genuine mistake by the respondent, and concluded the claimant knew or should have known of the error given the substantial difference between expected and actual pay over more than a year. The judge found the claimant had acted opportunistically after regaining access to the contract, and the mistaken term was not binding.
Practical note
A typographical error in a contract may not be enforceable where the employee knew or should have known of the mistake, particularly when they fail to raise the issue despite receiving substantially different pay for an extended period.
Legal authorities cited
Case details
- Case number
- 3303917/2024
- Decision date
- 16 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No