Claimant v Wayfairer Travel Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for asserting his statutory right to be paid wages to which he was lawfully entitled, which is automatically unfair under section 104 ERA 1996. The respondent's belief that employment had ended by mutual agreement was misplaced and did not reveal a potentially fair reason for dismissal.
The tribunal found ordinary unfair dismissal in addition to automatic unfair dismissal. The dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair, with no fair procedure followed and no potentially fair reason established under section 98 ERA 1996.
The claimant was not paid his wages, pension contributions, or childcare contributions for April, May, and June 2024, nor for the period 1-3 July 2024. The tribunal ordered payment of these unlawfully deducted sums totalling £17,763.90.
The breach of contract claim succeeded in relation to failure to provide proper notice. The tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to four months' reasonable notice given his seniority as managing director and co-founder, adjusted for the context of ongoing exit negotiations.
Facts
The claimant was managing director and 50% shareholder of the respondent travel company from August 2012 until dismissed on 3 July 2024. From July 2023 he was negotiating a share buyback and exit strategy, with heads of terms agreed January 2024, but continued working full-time. The respondent unlawfully withheld his wages (including £550/month childcare contributions) for April-June 2024, then dismissed him when he asserted his statutory right to be paid. The respondent mistakenly believed employment had ended by mutual agreement. The claimant immediately found lower-paid work, then secured a role at Routescape in November 2024 at £40,000 (later £42,000), compared to his previous £60,000 salary.
Decision
The tribunal awarded £75,833.06 comprising unpaid wages (£17,763.90), basic award (£7,700), and compensatory award (£50,369.16 after grossing up). The tribunal rejected all of the respondent's defences: there was no contributory conduct, zero Polkey reduction (as dismissal for asserting statutory right cannot be rendered fair by procedure), and mitigation failures only applied from April 2025 onwards. The claimant was entitled to four months' reasonable notice given his seniority and the exit negotiation context.
Practical note
Dismissing an employee for asserting their statutory right to be paid wages is automatically unfair and cannot be rendered fair by any procedure, meaning Polkey reductions do not apply and respondents remain liable for substantial losses even where the employee finds alternative employment.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 65.7 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6016099/2024
- Decision date
- 25 February 2025
- Hearing type
- remedy
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Managing Director
- Salary band
- £60,000–£80,000
- Service
- 12 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No