Claimant v ICP Support
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's claim under Section 13(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unlawful deduction of wages was not well founded, meaning the respondent did not make an unlawful deduction from the claimant's wages.
The tribunal determined that the respondent did not breach the claimant's contract in relation to failure to pay time taken off in lieu (TOIL), finding the claim not well founded.
Facts
Mr Heeney brought claims against his employer ICP Support alleging unlawful deduction of wages and breach of contract relating to time off in lieu (TOIL) that he claimed was not paid. The case was heard remotely by CVP at Manchester Employment Tribunal before Employment Judge A Khan. The claimant represented himself while the respondent was represented by solicitor Mr James Symons.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both of the claimant's claims, finding them not well founded. The tribunal concluded that there had been no unlawful deduction from wages under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and no breach of contract in relation to the alleged unpaid time off in lieu.
Practical note
Claims for unpaid TOIL require robust evidence that the contractual entitlement exists and that the employer failed to honour it; mere assertion is insufficient to establish either unlawful wage deduction or breach of contract.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6008280/2024
- Decision date
- 28 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- ICP Support
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No