Mr P Meade v Britannia Hotels No.2 Ltd: 6022140/2025

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6022140/2025

Between

Mr P MeadeClaimant

Britannia Hotels No.2 LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Employment Miller-Varey

In person for claimant

Date 17 December 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from pay contrary to Part II Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of the period 3 February 2025 and 7 April 2025 is not well-founded and is dismissed.

[2]So far as the claim may be made on the alternative grounds of breach of contract, the claim is not well-founded and is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]By this complaint the Claimant seeks an order that the Respondent pay to him a sum equal to that which a person in the role of his line manager would have been paid between 3 February 2025 and 7 April 2025. He seeks this in addition to his own wages for that period. It is common ground that his own wages have been paid.

[2]The basis of the Claim is that the company knowingly benefited from the Claimant stepping into the higher paid role of line manager over this period, as well as undertaking his own role. The gap grew up following the departure of the Claimant’s then line manager, Chris Kay, and the training and appointment of his replacement. The Claimant also alleges the Respondent deliberately Case No. 6022140/2025 avoided communication about a pay rise. These actions to the Claimant seem discourteous and unfair.

[3]I find there was nothing in the Claimant’s employment contract nor any additional written or oral term between the parties which entitled the Claimant contractually to the sum he claims. Since his employment with the Respondent is ongoing, he has no standing to bring a claim for breach of contract in any event.

[4]Under the Employment Rights Act 1996, a complaint may only be made for wages. The sum claimed is not the Claimant’s contractual salary. It is also not due under any statute or statutory instrument e.g. like payments for annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998. Whilst wages under the 1996 Act encompasses “any sums payable to the worker in connection with his employment”, the EAT has confirmed that an unjust enrichment claim for a quantum meruit (by which work beyond the scope of the existing employment contract may sound in a quantum meruit/unjust enrichment claim), cannot be brought under the ERA 1996 [Abellio East Midlands Ltd v Mr K Thomas

[2022] EAT 20

)

[5]In these circumstances, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award the sum claimed, or any lower or different sum for works done beyond the scope of the Claimant’s contract. It follows it is unnecessary to make findings over the actual work done by the Claimant (which is disputed), since the claim must be dismissed regardless. Tribunal Judge Miller-Varey Acting as a Judge of the Employment Tribunal 17 December 2025