Claimant v WSP UK Limited

The respondent breached the claimant's contract by terminating her fixed-term contract on 13 October 2023 instead of the agreed end date of 16 October 2023, and by only paying her salary up to 13 October. However, the claimant had already been partially compensated by a £20 payment in February 2024 for other breaches. The tribunal awarded net damages of £413.49 representing three days' lost salary and pension contributions.

The respondent breached contract by using the wrong basic pay figure (due to a software rounding error) when calculating the claimant's pay from November 2022 to October 2023, resulting in a gross underpayment of £4.30. The tribunal found this was a breach but made no award as the respondent had already paid £20 in February 2024 which more than covered this loss.

The respondent breached contract by failing to reimburse the claimant for a £3.50 bus fare incurred during her employment. However, no award was made as the respondent had already reimbursed this through the £20 payment made in February 2024.

The claimant alleged the respondent withdrew an agreed contract extension to March 2024. The tribunal found no binding extension was ever agreed. Mr Chinyere at the Environment Agency had no authority to offer an extension of the claimant's employment contract with WSP, and Mr Stansfield's email of 29 June 2023 expressed only a future intention to extend subject to formal approval, which never materialized.

The claimant alleged unlawful deductions relating to the payroll rounding error. The tribunal found this fell within section 13(4) ERA 1996 as it was an error affecting computation of gross wages, and therefore could not constitute an unlawful deduction. In any event, the loss had been reimbursed by the £20 payment.

The claimant alleged unlawful deduction in respect of the unreimbursed £3.50 bus fare. The tribunal found that as the bus fare was an expense incurred in carrying out employment, it was excluded from the definition of 'wages' under section 27 ERA 1996 and could not form the basis of an unlawful deduction claim.