M Lott v Yepic AI Ltd: 6003311/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages in the period 1 October 2024 to 2 December 2024 inclusive brought under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded and succeeds. Holiday pay[2]The complaint in respect of holiday pay brought under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for the period of 1 October 2024 to 2 December 2024 inclusive is well-founded and succeeds. Case Number: 6003311/2025 Pay in lieu of notice[3]The claimant’s complaint for breach of contract in respect of notice pay brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 is dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. Late pension contributions[4]The complaint of breach of contract due to late pension contributions, brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, is dismissed as the claimant opted-out of the relevant pension scheme. The parties are to provide submissions on remedy in accordance with the Case Management Orders dated 11 March 2026 sent out alongside this Judgment. Approved by: REMEDY JUDGMENT Wages[1]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages brought under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction of £4,356.72 from the claimant's net wages in the period 1 October 2024 to 2 December 2024 inclusive.[2]The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and it is just and equitable to increase the compensatory award payable to the claimant by 15% in accordance with section 207A of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Holiday pay[3]The complaint in respect of holiday pay brought under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 for the period of 1 October 2024 to 2 December 2024 inclusive is well-founded. The respondent made an unauthorised deduction of £1,213.80 from the claimant’s wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date the claimant’s employment ended.[4]The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and it is just and equitable to increase the award payable to the claimant by 15% in accordance with section 207A of the Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Pay in lieu of notice[5]The claimant’s complaint for breach of contract in respect of notice pay brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 is dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. Late pension contributions[6]The complaint of breach of contract due to late pension contributions, brought under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994, is dismissed as the claimant opted-out of the relevant pension scheme. Summary[7]The respondent is ordered to pay the sum of £6,406.10 calculated as follows. These figures are net to the claimant and the respondent is responsible for paying any taxes or national insurance contributions. Net wages not paid October 2024 £2,178.38 Net wages not paid November 2024 £2,178.38 Total net wages owed £4,356.72 Holidays not taken (net wages) £1,213.80 Total £5,570.52 Plus ACAS uplift at 15% £835.58 Judgment sum due £6,406.10REASONS
[1]I gave judgment and oral reasons in this case on 11 March 2026. Those reasons included reasons for the remedy and ACAS uplift in respect of the Wages claim.[2]The parties were unable to agree how many days of holiday pay the claimant was entitled to. The claimant said he was entitled to 12 days holiday pay. The respondent said the claimant was entitled to at most a maximum of 8 days. The point had not been the subject of oral evidence before me and there was insufficient time in the allocated hearing slot to permit me to hear further submissions.[3]I therefore issued a Judgment on Liability and Further Case Management Orders which were sent to the parties on 13 March 2026.[4]Those orders included the following:[9]Therefore, by not later than 4pm on 10 April 2026 the respondent is to send the following to the Tribunal and copy the claimant:9.1 Its calculation of the claimant’s holidays accrued but not taken on the date the claimant’s employment ended, namely 2 December 2026. The calculation must include the number of days and the net wages owed per day. The calculation is to be presented on 1 side of an A4 page in size 12 font with standard spacing and margins. Any calculations beyond that 1 page will not be considered.9.2 Evidence underlying that calculation, in particular printouts of HR records, lists of holidays taken, and other contemporaneous records. This evidence may not exceed 20 pages in length. Any screenshots, printouts or images must be legible. Any pages beyond the 20 pages will not be considered.[10]By not later than 4pm on 24 April 2026 the claimant is to write to the Tribunal copying the respondent stating whether he agrees or disagrees with the respondent’s calculation. If he disagrees:10.1 The claimant must explain why he disagrees. The explanation is to be presented on 1 side of an A4 page in size 12 font with standard spacing and margins. Any explanation beyond this length will not be considered.10.2 The claimant may produce further evidence. Any such evidence is to be limited to 20 pages in length. Any screenshots, printouts or images must be legible. Any pages beyond the 20 pages will not be considered.[11]Following receipt of both parties’ calculations and explanations as directed above, the Tribunal will decide the matter on the papers without a hearing. A remedy judgment will then be issued.[12]The parties are strongly encouraged to attempt to agree the amount due to the claimant in relation to holiday pay using the services of ACAS if appropriate. If agreement is reached between the parties, the Tribunal should be notified promptly of the agreed figure. About these orders[13]In light of suggestions that previous Tribunal correspondence has not reached one or more parties, I have directed that these Orders be sent by email to the following email addresses:13.1 The claimant at mattlottmusic@gmail.com13.2 The respondent at aaron@aaronjones.tech, team@yepic.ai, aaron@yepic.ai[14]If any of these orders is not complied with, the Tribunal may:(a) waive or vary the requirement;(b) strike out the claim or the response;(c) bar or restrict participation in the proceedings; and/or(d) award costs in accordance with the Employment Tribunal Rules.[15]Anyone affected by any of these orders may apply for it to be varied, suspended or set aside. 5. On 13 April 2026 the claimant wrote to the Tribunal, copying the respondent, to advise that he had not received the respondent’s submissions as directed by 10 April 2026 and so could not comply with direction 10. 6. On the same day the respondent’s representative Aaron Jones replied, copying the Tribunal, from the email address “aaron@aaronjones.tech” stating “Hello I believe I sent it, did you not receive it?”. No attachments were included with that email. 7. Tribunal staff have checked the Tribunal inbox for any communications since 13 March 2026 from any of the respondent’s notified email addresses. No communications save the email of 13 April 2026 have been received. No documents have been uploaded by the respondent to the online portal. 8. I would expect that, having been advised by the claimant that the submissions had not been received, the respondent would have made efforts to ensure that the submissions were sent or resent to the claimant and Tribunal as a matter of urgency. I do not consider that the email response of 13 April 2026 complies with the Tribunal’s directions or the obligation of a party to assist and cooperate pursuant to the overriding objective. 9. In the circumstances I proceed pursuant to the overriding objective, in particular rule 3(2)(b), (c), (d) and (e), and the directions I made on 11 March 2026, to determine the matter on the papers before me. 10. These are my reasons for my decision to award holiday pay in the sum set out in the above Remedy Judgment. 11. I allow the claimant’s claim for holiday pay for 12 days. That calculation is based upon his evidence in contemporaneous emails that he had booked 8 days holiday in advance at the time of his resignation, and his schedule of loss stating he was owed a further 4 days not taken. He provided to the respondent’s then solicitors a screenshot of holiday owing as at 28 November 2024. He has provided the calculation (based upon payslips) of 12 days net at £1213.80. I have not received any submissions from the respondent and I have not been taken to evidence in the bundle that shows a different figure. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the claimant has proved he is owed 12 days holiday. Approved by: