Cases6013197/2025

Claimant v Brighton, Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College

9 September 2025Before Employment Judge BurgeLondon Southin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherfailed

The claimant claimed her itemised pay statements did not comply with s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found the payslips clearly showed gross pay items, deductions, and net pay as required. While some details (like induction start date and the word 'gross') were not perfect, they met statutory requirements. The claimant had been paid everything owed and the payslips contained the required particulars.

Facts

The claimant was employed as an evening languages tutor on a fixed-term contract from October 2024 to June 2025. She resigned in November 2024 giving two months' notice citing personal reasons. The respondent found cover for her classes and released her early from her contract by mutual agreement on 22 November 2024. A dispute arose over classification of payments on her payslips, particularly whether notice pay should have been described as 'gardening leave' rather than 'payment in lieu of notice'. The claimant also disputed minor details like the induction start date.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the payslips complied with s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996. They clearly showed gross pay items, deductions, and net pay as required by statute. While some descriptions could have been clearer, the statutory requirements were met. The employment ended by mutual termination on 22 November 2024, not by gardening leave as claimed.

Practical note

Itemised pay statements need only contain the statutory particulars required by s.8 ERA 1996 (gross pay, deductions, net pay, hours) - they do not need to use specific terminology or include employment dates, and minor inaccuracies in dates that are not required fields do not render them non-compliant.

Legal authorities cited

Delaney v Staples (t/a De Montfort Recruitment) [1992] ICR 483

Statutes

Employment Rights Act 1996 s.8Employment Rights Act 1996 s.27Employment Rights Act 1996 s.11Employment Rights Act 1996 s.12

Case details

Case number
6013197/2025
Decision date
9 September 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
0.375
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
education
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
evening languages tutor
Service
2 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No