Mrs N Yadid v Evcia Assets Ltd and T S Doyle: 2200573/2024 and 2216191/2024
JUDGMENT
(1) The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The First Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 9 November 2023 to 4 January 2024.(2) The First Respondent shall pay the Claimant £8,333.34, less deductions for income tax and national insurance. Payment should be made within 14 days.REASONS
Background
[1]Mr Doyle, who is a director of the First Respondent, admits that the Claimant is owed two months’ pay by the First Respondent and admits the gross monthly salary figure set out in the Claimant’s Schedule of Loss dated 13 June 2024. - 1 - Case Number: 2200573/2024[2]2 months x £4,166.67 gross monthly figure = £8,333.34.[3]Judgment has been entered for this sum given that this is not in dispute. I declined to make an unless order in relation to payment of that sum and the remainder of the claim, however the Claimant may apply the event that judgment is not satisfied within 14 days.Evidence
[4]There is an outstanding dispute in relation to the claim against Mr Doyle personally and the Claimant’s contention that she should be paid for a minimum of six months and that there should be an ACAS uplift pursuant to s207(A) TULRC(A) 1992.[5]The calculation of holiday pay can be made once the period of employment is decided.[1]Mr Doyle, who is a director of the First Respondent, admits that the Claimant is two months’ pay by the First Respondent and admits the gross monthly salary figure set out in the Claimant’s Schedule of Loss dated 13 June 2024. 2 months x £4,166.67 gross monthly figure = £8,333.34.[2]Judgment was already entered for this sum on 4 November 2024. Unless order[3]The response of the First Respondent has been dismissed by operation of the Unless Order of Employment Judge Adkin made on 13 January 2025, the First Respondent having failed to comply by 29 January 2025.[4]The background to that order was the repeated failure of the First Respondent to respond to the Claimant’s then solicitor who was chasing payment, and then correspondence from the Tribunal. The First Respondent failed to respond to correspondence from both the Claimant’s solicitor, the Tribunal and then failed to respond to the Unless Order. Today’s hearing[5]At today’s hearing the First Respondent did not offer any explanation for the failure to comply with earlier orders. Quantification ofThe Claim
The Claim
[6]I assessed the Claimant’s schedule of loss dated 13 June 2024. I accepted all sums in this schedule save for the uplift under the ACAS code, which was claimed at 25%. For a very small operation which the First Respondent was, without any Human Resources department, it seems to me that an uplift at the lowest end of the scale is more appropriate.[7]I quantify the claim as follows: 7.1. Breach of contract (six months pay) £19,386.18; 7.2. Holiday pay £ 1,368.00 7.3. Sub-total £20,754.18 7.4. Uplift failure to follow ACAS code 10% £2,075.41 7.5. Total £22,829.60Findings of Fact
[8]I must give credit to the First Respondent for the following sums: - 2 - 8.1. Judgment already given £8,333.34 (*) 8.2. Judgment given today £14,496.26. (*) That judgment, given on 4 November 2024 still stands. I understand that £500 of that judgment was paid for the first time today. Claim against Second Respondent[9]The claim against the Second Respondent Mr Doyle is not decided. There is a separate case management order for the further progression of this claim. An oral judgment was given at the hearing.[2]The Claimant requested written reasons at the hearing.[3]In these proceedings by a judgment dated 3 March and sent to the parties on 10 March 2025 the First Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant £14,496.26. Payment has not been received and the First Respondent is dissolved. - 1 - Evidence Both parties attended and gave evidence.[5]The documentation which I have in front of me were some documents that had been retained from a previous hearing in particular a 100 page document produced by the Claimant at a previous hearing and a witness statement from Mr Doyle the Second Respondent which is dated 23 February 2025 which exhibits various messages to it. The Claimant also produced a witness statement for this hearing, that is a witness statement which is dated 5 September 2025, there are nine exhibits to that statement which I printed and made available to the parties.[6]The parties each confirmed that their statements were accurate and each had the opportunity to cross examine each other and ask questions relating to those documents. I have also asked various questions as I have gone alone. The Claim[7]The Claimant says that at a period of time before she began working for the First Respondent she was working personally for Mr Doyle the Second Respondent. That is in dispute. Findings of Fact History[8]In 2023 and possibly earlier Mr Doyle was developing a venture to install EV charging units for vehicles in residential blocks.[9]On 14 July 2023 there was a text exchange between Mr Doyle and Andre Barron who is the Claimant’s brother. Mr Doyle explained he was looking for staff to find appropriate property sites to install EV chargers for commissions. Mr Barron suggested his sister would be interested and mentioned that she worked in residential property. In that exchange there is a reference, Mr Doyle said reckon we can pay site finders to £250 for each building referred us that we sign up, if you have any referrers you can offer them that. Commencement of work[10]There was then some communication directly between Mr Doyle and the Claimant. The Claimant was not available until September because she was on holiday in August.[11]Then as of early September the Claimant began work. - 2 - Dispute as to terms agreed[12]Mr Doyle says that at that stage on 6 September the two of them had a discussion. First, he says that there were no employees, second that there was a commission payment of £250 per building where there was an installation. It was commission only he says and the basis of the arrangement was keep what you catch.[13]The Claimant says that she started an employment relationship directly with the Second Respondent on a promise salary of £50,000 per year gross salary.[14]It was on that day which was 11 September that Mr Doyle says the Claimant had access to “our domain and also our software” he explained that this related to Evcia Limited which is a different company to the First Respondent and a company which had been operating since March 2023. His evidence is that at that stage this was the only company.[15]In fact there are several Evcia companies. Evcia Limited was the only company that was already incorporated at that stage. That was the only company that the Claimant could have contracted with. Mr Doyle he says she was not contracting with him personally. Duties performed[16]During September and October 2023 the Claimant performed duties liaising with potential clients and installers and representing the business in negotiations. Mr Doyle accepts that she worked hard and was efficient and he wanted her to carry on working for the business.[17]Then on 2 November there was a WhatsApp exchange which I have a page 7 in the bundle which we created in today’s hearing of documents attached to the Claimant’s witness statement which said this on 2 November sent first thing in the morning: “we pay you a monthly retainer of 15k a year plus a bonus (as follows) for managing each installation to confirmation and approval based on a sliding case on the number of bays. Performance bonus for a big block like Indescon it will be £1,000 for a smaller one like Cable Street £250 we will pay for anything going through at the moment no matter where it originated if we need to expand the team your pay per block may decrease to on the work they did to accommodate the new staff but while you would get a (smaller) commission on what they do your overall compensation package would go up for managing them. The role would be Property Director. In addition to pay there would be a 3% shareholding in the new company Evcia Assets Limited which will manage all the installation.[18]The Claimant responded to say she was driving but she said she would look at it when she got home. - 3 -[19]They then in the exchange arranged for a meeting to take place on 6 November. There was evidently a discussion and there were some other matters that are talked about.[20]In the meantime the First Respondent Evcia Assets Limited was incorporated and that is confirmed in the Company’s House register. I was a new business starting on 9 November and in fact the Respondents accept that the Claimant was employed by the First Respondent from that point onward. Written contract[21]On the 13 November Mr Doyle sent an employment contract to the Claimant and Ms Yadid replied a few minutes later saying just to be clear renumeration as an example, if I make £60k in commission over the year that would get off set against the £50k retainer to leave me with a £10k bonus, also bonuses will be paid monthly or end of year.[22]And then Mr Doyle confirmed a few minutes later from that also on 13 November, commission paid as it happens so we pay you a minimum £50k or £4,167 a month if you do more than £4,167 (which I think you will each month) we will pay you the higher amount. Is that fair we won’t do a claw back.[23]A bit later Ms Yadid said that is very fair I understand and everything looks great. Payslip[24]What then happened is a bit later on the Claimant received a payslip dated 4 December which relates to the whole of the month of November which had a figure that reflected the figure that I have just mentioned which is £4,167 which amounts to a £50,000 per year. Funding difficulties[25]Mr Doyle sent an email on 14 December 2023 copying her brother Mr Barron which was providing an update with the business about trying to get funding, there seemed to be delays in funding and he write this: “I onboarded you too quickly really, I assumed we would be further on but EA really fucked that up but you have done the work since September so it needed sorting”[26]Also, around that time he sent a message to Mr Barron saying that he was going to prop up the company with a Director’s loan which the Claimant has asked me to consider.[27]Ultimately what happened is the venture was not the success that both parties were hoping that it would be. - 4 - Termination of employment[28]The Claimants employment with the First Respondent was terminated on 4 January 2024. Claim[29]A claim was presented on 17 January 2024. Dissolution[30]The First Respondent company was dissolved on 9 August 2025 that is this year.[31]It is not in dispute that there are several or there were at least several Evcia companies including Evcia Assets Limited which was the First Respondent and Evcia Limited which the Second Respondent Mr Doyle says if anything was the employer in the period September to November 2023. No installations[32]It seems to be common ground between the parties that although Ms Yadid worked during that period no installations were carried out, she says that the business was not in a position to actually carry out the installations even though she had worked on and identified prospective clients. Summary of submissions Claimant’s submissions[33]The Claimant argues that she was working during that period, it’s not in dispute she was working hard, she was organised and good at the work, she points to the payslip dated 4 December 2023 which suggests an annual salary of £50,000 per year she suggest that Mr Doyle said to her, I must pay you which suggested a degree of personal obligation.[34]She also in her witness statement mentions the circumstances of the First Respondent not honouring a Tribunal Judgment and being dissolved and seeks help with enforcement. I have explained to her that I cannot deal with that but that is something that she has put forward. Second Respondent’s submissions[35]On the other side Mr Doyle says that if the Claimant was working for a company at all it was Evcia Limited not himself personally. Evcia Limited he says was the only company of several Evcia companies that was actually incorporated at the beginning of September 2023 when the Claimant started working.[36]Evcia Limited is not a party to these proceedings although it is still a live company, I can see with an active proposal to strike off, Mr Doyle is and was a Director of that business. - 5 -[37]He says that the terms were £250 per installation and that that was a commission only arrangement. He relies upon his exchange with Andre Barron back on 14 July which supports that that was what he had in mind. He also relies on the message that he sent on 2 November first thing in the morning, this was just a few days before the incorporation of Evcia Assets Limited and he was proposing to the Claimant a monthly retainer of £15,000 per year plus bonus. What he says is this, why would he propose £15,000 if the Claimant was already on £50,000 and it invites me to conclude from that and the ultimate exchange that it cannot have been the case that £50,000 was already an agreement between the two of them although in fact £50,000 retainer then does occur at a later stage on the 13th.Conclusions
[38]As to what was the agreement, the burden is on the Claimant to demonstrate what the terms and agreement are. In this case what the Claimant needs to show is that she had agreed that it was a £50,000 salary and agreed that Mr Doyle would be personally liable for it.[39]It is not in dispute that there has not been a payment.[40]The dispute is about what was agreed and whether Mr Doyle was personally liable.[41]This is a difficult case where there are conflicting versions of events, this is a case where Mr Doyle says one thing and the Claimant says another.[42]There is however no evidence from September 2023 that supports the Claimant’s version of events. It seems to me that the exchange in November 2023 does support Mr Doyle’s version of events.[43]If the Claimant was already on £50,000 salary she would very likely have pushed back if she was being offered only £15,000 but she did not. So I am not satisfied that £50,000 a year salary for Mr Doyle to be paying her personally was what agreed. I find in line with the exchange with Mr Barron this was at that early stage simply about commission but it never got to the point where this needed to be paid.[44]I did consider whether I should use my power under the Tribunal rules to bring in Evcia Limited as an additional party but given my findings I am not sure that that would have helped the Claimant because I do not find that there is a £50,000 salary agreed.[45]It seems to me on balance more likely that there was a commission arrangement which both parties agreed would not have been engaged because installations were not carried out at that time.[46]So, for those reasons I dismiss the claim. - 6 - Comment[47]Can I say I am extremely sympathetic to Ms Yadid’s position. She has done a lot of work, she has not been paid for it and I understand why she feels that she has been badly treated. I fully understand that but the difficulty I have is that I am bound by the law and those are the findings that I have made. Approved by