Cases3305336/2024

Claimant v Glyn Hopkin Ltd

16 June 2025Before Employment Judge AlliottWatfordin person

Outcome

Partly successful£5,398

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in respect of his six month bonus. The respondent was ordered to pay the gross sum of £5,398.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

The tribunal found that the respondent was in breach of contract regarding the claimant's six month bonus and awarded damages of £5,398 in the same sum as the unauthorised deduction claim.

Whistleblowingfailed

The claim of automatically unfair dismissal under section 103(A) ERA (whistleblowing) was dismissed by the tribunal, indicating that the claimant failed to establish that he was dismissed for making protected disclosures.

Detrimentfailed

The claim of detriment for making a protected disclosure under section 48 ERA was dismissed, indicating the tribunal found the claimant did not suffer detriment as a result of making protected disclosures.

Breach of Contractfailed

Other breach of contract claims (beyond the six month bonus claim) were dismissed by the tribunal.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

Other unauthorised deduction of wages claims (beyond the six month bonus claim) were dismissed by the tribunal.

Facts

Mr Coelho brought claims against his former employer Glyn Hopkin Ltd including whistleblowing dismissal, detriment for protected disclosures, and various wage/bonus related claims. The central dispute included whether he was entitled to a six month bonus and whether his dismissal and treatment were related to protected disclosures he allegedly made.

Decision

The tribunal found in favour of the claimant only regarding his six month bonus, awarding £5,398 gross for unauthorised deduction of wages and/or breach of contract. All other claims including whistleblowing dismissal and detriment claims were dismissed. Costs were awarded to the respondent and can be offset against the judgment sum.

Practical note

A self-represented claimant succeeded on a narrow contractual bonus claim but failed on more complex whistleblowing claims, and faced costs consequences for the unsuccessful elements despite achieving a partial victory.

Award breakdown

Unpaid wages£5,398

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.103(A)ERA 1996 s.48

Case details

Case number
3305336/2024
Decision date
16 June 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No