Mr P Saxholm v Global Transport Solutions Ltd (formerly Snowfall Services Ltd) in voluntary liquidation: 6021362/2024
JUDGMENT
[1]The Respondent presented no ET3.[2]It is ordered that the Respondent’s name is to be amended as per the heading to this Judgment.[3]The Claimant was an employee of the Respondent from 27 November 2020 – 4 October 2024.[4]The Claims were presented in time.[5]There is sufficient information in the ET1 to calculate the uncontested debts owed to the Claimant under rule 22.[6]It is declared that the Respondent has breached the Claimant’s contract of employment, has failed to pay the Claimant accrued but untaken annual leave upon termination of employment and has unlawfully deducted his wages. 1 of 2 Sept 2023 Case Number: 6021362/2024[7]The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant £38,000 gross pay for the linked deductions of wages for April, July, August and September 2024, at £10,000 per months with employee’ pension contributions of £500 per month having already been deducted.[8]The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant damages for breach of contract for failing to pay employee pensions contributions into the Claimant’s pension scheme in breach of contract for the months of March – September 2024 being 7 months at £500 per month, namely, £3,500.[9]The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant £6,311 gross pay for 13 days’ accrued but untaken annual leave that the Respondent failed to pay to the Claimant upon termination of the Claimant’s employment.[10]Consequently, the Respondent must pay to the Claimant £44,311, subject to income tax deductions via PAYE and £3,500 tax free.[11]The total amount payable to the Claimant gross is therefore £47,811.[12]If, for whatever reason, the Claimant is paid the gross amounts by the respondent, he has agreed to account to HMRC for all tax due via a personal tax return.[13]The Claimant’s claims for employer pension contributions are struck out under rule 38 (1) (a). The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear those claims so they have no reasonable prospect of success.[14]The Claimant’s application to amend the claim verbally at the hearing to add an additional two days’ annual leave to his claim was not pursued. Judgment approved by: