Cases6005746/2024

Claimant v Exceed Contracting Limited

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesfailed

The tribunal found the claimant was paid the amount due per hour under her contract. She had not fully understood the arrangements but if she had read the documents provided, she would have understood she would not receive £17 per hour but a lesser amount after various deductions. Payments appeared to be in accordance with the contractual agreement.

Breach of Contractfailed

The tribunal concluded the claimant was paid for business mileage as reported by the agency. Payments were subject to tax and NI deductions because the claimant had not made a claim to the respondent providing the information they would need to make the mileage payments tax free, as required by her contract. The respondent was not in breach of contract.

Facts

The claimant was employed by an umbrella company to work for a local authority through an agency. She believed she would earn £17 per hour and receive higher mileage payments based on past experience working directly for local authorities. She brought claims for unauthorised deduction from wages regarding alleged shortfall in hourly pay and breach of contract regarding mileage expenses. The tribunal found she was paid in accordance with her contract and dismissed both claims on 6 January 2025. The claimant applied for reconsideration on 12 January 2025.

Decision

The tribunal refused the reconsideration application, finding no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked. The judge held that the claimant's application mostly raised irrelevant points or attempted to re-litigate factual issues already determined. Procedural fairness concerns raised by the claimant, including issues about bundle pagination during the hearing, did not affect the fairness of the proceedings.

Practical note

Reconsideration applications must show reasonable prospect of success and cannot be used to re-argue facts already determined or raise points that could have been made at the original hearing.

Legal authorities cited

Ministry of Justice v Burton and anor [2016] EWCA Civ 714Flint v Eastern Electricity Board [1975] ICR 395Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials [1994] ICR 384Liddington v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0002/16

Case details

Case number
6005746/2024
Decision date
6 January 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
No

Employment details

Role
Local authority assignment via umbrella company

Claimant representation

Represented
No