Claimant v Diamond Hangar Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent's failure to pay the claimant promptly or at all following 4 March 2024 was a fundamental breach of contract and a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant resigned on 4 June 2024 in response to this repudiatory breach, having waited two months without payment or explanation. The dismissal was unfair as the claimant did not engage in misconduct and the suspension was said to be temporary for business reorganisation.
The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to six months' notice pay in a lump sum within seven days as per the contract. The claimant did not receive this notice pay. The claim for wrongful dismissal succeeded and will be addressed at the remedy hearing.
The tribunal found that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages in the period 1 April 2024 to 4 June 2024 inclusive. The claimant was entitled to monthly payments of £6,000 but did not receive payment for one month during this period, despite repeated requests.
Facts
The claimant worked for the respondent from August 2018 as Director of Administration at a hangar facility at Stansted Airport, paid £6,000 per month. Although he signed a 'service agreement' describing him as a contractor, the reality was that he worked under the control and supervision of the owner Prince Eze, was paid a salary regardless of work done, worked set hours on the respondent's premises, and was integral to the business. On 1 March 2024 he was suspended pending a business reorganisation. He was paid once in April 2024 but thereafter the respondent failed to pay him despite repeated requests and assurances the suspension was temporary. He resigned on 4 June 2024 citing non-payment. The respondent alleged various acts of misconduct and mismanagement which the tribunal found were not proven.
Decision
The tribunal found that despite the written contract labelling the claimant as a contractor, the reality of the relationship was that he was an employee under a contract of employment. The respondent's failure to pay the claimant from March 2024 onwards was a fundamental breach of contract and breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed when he resigned on 4 June 2024. The tribunal rejected the respondent's allegations of misconduct as unproven and found no Polkey reduction or contributory fault. The claims for constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages all succeeded. Remedy to be determined at a further hearing.
Practical note
Written contract terms describing a relationship as contractor/client are not determinative if the reality of the working relationship demonstrates the hallmarks of employment: control, integration, payment of a salary regardless of work done, and set hours at the employer's premises. Suspension followed by non-payment without explanation can amount to a fundamental breach entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201623/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Director of Administration
- Salary band
- £60,000–£80,000
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor