Pendragon Plc v Nota: EAT 18 Mar 2002

The employer appealed against a finding of unlawful deduction of wages.
Held: The words ‘any . . emolument’ includes overtime pay, which may be isolated from other contractual terms as to pay. An arrangement under which the employer had tried to defeat a claim for unpaid overtime, by redescribing the basic pay rate failed. The tribunal had advised counsel that a costs order might be made, but had not told the parties directly in order to avoid inhibiting their evidence. The defendant appealed a later wasted costs order. The tribunal had done no more than to have indicated its view that presentation to it of matters of complaint which had never been put to the claimant, could only be a waste of time, since they could not be considered by the tribunal. Nothing had been done to indicate that the tribunal had a closed mind.


His Honour Judge Peter Clark


EAT/0031/00, [2002] EAT 0031 – 00 – 1803, [2002] UKEAT 0031 – 00 – 1803


Bailii, Bailii, EAT


Employment Rights Act 1996 13(3) 27(1)(a), Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1993 Sch 1 12(1)


England and Wales


See AlsoPendragon Plc v Nota EAT 16-Nov-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168551