{"id":595152,"date":"2026-04-18T14:57:53","date_gmt":"2026-04-18T12:57:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\/"},"modified":"2026-04-18T14:57:53","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T12:57:53","slug":"r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\/","title":{"rendered":"R Moon v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

SUMMARY UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES; HARASSMENT; UNFAIR DISMISSAL Unlawful deduction \u2013 the Claimant challenged the approach taken by the ET on the basis that they had not properly considered his contractual rights or the exercise by the Respondent of its discretion with regard to the award of bonus. However, the claim at all times fell outside the scope of a claim for unpaid wages based on the decision of the CA in Coors Brewers v Adcock [2017] ICR 983. Whilst it was correct that the ET appear not to have properly considered the definition of \u2018wages\u2019 in section 27 Employment Rights Act 1996, any error was academic given the way in which the claim had been advanced by the Claimant; Harassment \u2013 the ET had been entitled to find that objectively, it was not reasonable for the Respondent\u2019s conduct to have had the effect of violating the Claimant\u2019s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him \u2013 the ET had properly applied section26 Equality Act 2010 and the decision could not be said to be perverse; Unfair dismissal \u2013 the ET had properly considered the reason for dismissal and found it to be redundancy. There was no room for any conclusion that the real reason for dismissal was the Claimant\u2019s absences from work or that the decision maker had been manipulated into the conclusion that he had reached. MR BRUCE CARR KC: Introduction 1. In this judgment, the parties will be referred to by the titles which they held in the Employment Tribunal (\u201cET\u201d). This is an appeal and cross-appeal against a decision of the Cardiff ET sent to the parties on 21 April 2021. The Claimant had originally brought proceedings in the ET, advancing a range of claims including unfair dismissal, dismissal for the assertion of a statutory right, and disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation. He also brought a claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The ET found in favour of the Claimant only in relation to his unfair dismissal claim and, as far as that claim was concerned, the finding of unfairness was limited to the fact that he had not been allowed a right of appeal against his dismissal, which the ET had found was by reason of redundancy. 2. The Claimant first submitted a Notice of Appeal on 5 October 2021 and in which he took three grounds of appeal. His appeal was rejected by HHJ Beard on 22 November 2021 under Rule 3(7) Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 (\u201cEAT Rules\u201d). At a Rule 3(10) hearing held on 6 December 2022, HHJ Tayler allowed the appeal to proceed to a further hearing, the Claimant having indicated that he was abandoning a number of his original Grounds of Appeal and was limiting the scope of the remaining grounds. HHJ Tayler, whilst accepting that there appeared within the remaining Grounds, points of law that were properly arguable, the points that he was making were still lengthy and in part, hard to follow. He therefore ordered that the Claimant should submit \u201cconcise proposed amended grounds\u201d which would then be considered at a preliminary hearing to consider whether in fact, the points raised by the Claimant should proceed to a full hearing. 3. The preliminary hearing duly took place before HHJ Tucker who, by an order dated 9 July 2023, directed that the appeal be set down for a full hearing and that the Claimant should indicate whether he wished to adopt the Grounds of Appeal which had been identified by the Judge and recorded in the Reasons attached to her order. Three grounds were identified as follows: a. Ground 1 \u2013 unlawful deduction \u2013 failure to have regard to the definition of \u201cwages\u201d in section 27(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 (\u201cERA\u201d) or properly to consider the effect of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (\u201cTUPE\u201d) and took unreasonably narrow construction of contractual provisions; b. Ground 2 \u2013 error in relation to the conclusions reached at paragraph 204 of the ET Reasons, dealing with the Claimant\u2019s harassment claim; c. Ground 3 \u2013 unfair dismissal \u2013 failure properly to consider whether redundancy was the reason for dismissal and failure to identify the decision maker. 4. The Claimant duly adopted the Grounds of Appeal as formulated by HHJ Tucker in an email to that effect that he sent to the EAT on 12 July 2023. 5. The Respondent submitted an Answer and Cross-Appeal on 4 August 2023. In the Cross-Appeal, 6 points were taken under 2 separate headings. Grounds 1-3 related to the Claimant\u2019s unlawful deduction claim and Grounds 3-6 related to findings that the ET had made regarding disability related harassment. The Cross-Appeal was considered by John Bowers KC who, by an order dated 12 September 2023, allowed the appeal to proceed to a full hearing in relation to Grounds 1-3 but rejected Grounds 4-6 on the basis that they amounted effectively to a challenge to hypothetical findings made by the ET and did not arise out of the Appeal. The Respondent applied for a hearing under Rule 16(6) EAT Rules. That hearing took place on 18 April 2024 before HHJ Auerbach who allowed Grounds 4-6 of the Cross-Appeal to proceed to a full hearing. The Unlawful Deductions Claim \u2013 Findings by the Employment Tribunal 6. In his application to the ET, the Claimant pursued as an unlawful deduction from wages, a claim for bonus for the 2017 financial year (\u201cFY17\u201d). In his Claim Form he stated that had he \u201cbeen paid the bonus in accordance with the previous year\u2019s measures or measures similar to the other Cardiff staff, the amount would have been over \u00a320,000\u201d. This was in contrast to the payment of just \u00a33,400 which had been paid to him under the terms of a letter received from the Respondent and dated 18 September 2017. Under the heading \u201cRemedies\u201d at paragraph 124(e) of his Claim Form, the Claimant said that he was seeking compensation in the form of a payment of his \u201creasonable bonus for FY17 and any bonus payable at the conclusion of or part way through FY18\u201d. It is therefore apparent from the Claim Form that whilst the Claimant was seeking a substantial sum by way of unpaid bonus, he did not specify any particular figure and instead put the claim on the basis of any assessment of what he felt was his reasonable entitlement. 7. The key findings made by the ET in relation to this claim were as follows: a. The Claimant had advanced bonus claims for FY2017 and FY2018 in the sum of \u00a320,830 for each year. The Respondent had asserted that any entitlement to bonus was discretionary and that as a result, the sums claimed did not amount to \u201cwages\u201d that were properly payable to the Claimant. The ET had therefore focussed its attention on the question of whether the Claimant had a contractual right to a quantifiable bonus (ET Reasons, paragraph 20); b. The Claimant had originally commenced his employment with Leo Abse & Cohen solicitors (\u201cLAC\u201d) in November 2012. In May 2015, that business was transferred to Slater and Gordon (UK) 1 Limited (\u201cS&G UK1\u201d). At the time of the transfer, the Claimant was provided with a letter setting out the terms under which he was employed which included as an appendix, a schedule setting out the core benefits and salary of his employment with LAC and the proposed salary and benefits relating to S&G UK1. Whilst the transfer of LAC was subject to the provisions of the TUPE, the S&G UK1 terms were an improvement on those which applied to the Claimant\u2019s employment with LAC \u2013 he told the ET that he was happy to accept the new S&G UK1 terms and did not rely on TUPE (ET Reasons, paragraphs 32-33); c. The S&G UK1 schedule of terms and conditions contained the following wording regarding bonuses: \u201cS&G are currently reviewing their bonus schemes as part of their remuneration strategy Project. S&G is looking to establish a balanced scorecard approach which encourages a broader range of behaviours to support culture, clients and practise development. At the beginning of the scheme year, managers will determine the weightings ascribed to each balanced scorecard element for individuals. At the end of the scheme year, managers will be required to assess an individual against the objectives set. The level at which the scheme pays out is determined by achievement against these objectives, and payments could range from 5% to 40% of base salary. The scheme is currently awaiting final approval by the S&G Governance Group and the outcome of staff consultation. It is proposed that the new scheme would be effective from one July 2015. S&G\u2019s bonus schemes are discretionary and noncontractual and participation is subject to eligibility.\u201d (ET Reasons, paragraph 33) d. On 30 April 2016, there was a further TUPE transfer following a restructure process within the Slater and Gordon group, with the Claimant\u2019s employment transferring to Slater and Gordon Solutions Limited. That company later changed its name to Slater and Gordon UK Limited, the Respondent to the Claimant\u2019s claims (ET Reasons, paragraph 34); e. In October 2016, the Claimant had received a bonus payment of \u00a320,830 gross in respect of the preceding financial year which had run from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016. In January 2018, he received a gross payment of \u00a33,400 for the financial year ending 30 June 2017 (ET Reasons, paragraph 39); f. On 18 October 2018, the Claimant was notified that his bonus for the financial year ended June 2018 would \u00a33267.17 gross and would be paid to him on 24 December 2018, subject to him remaining in employment with the Respondent as at that date. He was told that he was eligible for a bonus of 10% of his annual salary but his actual bonus had been pro-rated to 61% of that figure to take account his absences from work that he had had during the year (ET Reasons, paragraph 114); g. The focus of the Claimant\u2019s claim, the ET found to have been the provision set out in the S&G UK1 schedule of terms and conditions dealing with bonus and which is set out above. As to that, the ET found that \u201cthe appendix included a sentence that the Respondent\u2019s bonus schemes were discretionary and non-contractual and that participation was subject to eligibility\u201d (ET Reasons, paragraphs 205-6); h. The Tribunal accepted an argument apparently advanced by the Respondent that there could not be a contractual right to a non-contractual bonus save in circumstances in which a commitment might have arisen by virtue of custom and practice, a point which was not pursued by the Claimant. The result was that \u201cany bonus payable was entirely discretionary.\u201d (ET Reasons, paragraph 208) i. The Claimant was therefore, in the absence of any argument based on perversity, only entitled to such bonus as had been declared by the Respondent \u2013 which for 2017 was \u00a33,400 and which was paid to him. He would only have been entitled to the 2018 bonus if he had been in employment as at 24 December 2018, which he was not. For those reasons there had not been any deduction from wages relating to the 2018 bonus (ET Reasons, paragraphs 208-209) The Harassment Claim \u2013 Findings by the Employment Tribunal 8. The key findings of the ET with regard to the Claimant\u2019s harassment claim were as follows: a. As set out in the List of Issues (Reasons, paragraph 5), the harassment claim advanced by the Claimant centred on the conduct of a meeting held on 16 February 2018 at which he had been accused of \u201cinsubordination\u2026.failing to communicate properly and putting him to his election as to whether he was fit for work on the spot\u201d; b. The Claimant had suffered a period of ill health, particularly anxiety and depression and which had led him to take sick absence with effect from 4 December 2017 (Reasons, paragraph 46) at which point he was signed off work for a one month period (Reasons, paragraph 48); c. The Claimant was then absent from work for a further period from 9-23 January 2018. He had a return-to-work discussion on 25 January 2018 with Mr Frank Wade, the Respondent\u2019s Chief Operating Officer and the Claimant\u2019s line manager at the relevant time. The following day, the Claimant sent a lengthy email to Mr Wade in which he stated that he was suffering from anxiety which was worsened by the office environment (Reasons, paragraph 54); d. A further return-to-work meeting was then held on 31 January 2018. In addition to Mr Wade, the meeting was also attended by Jayne Ross, HR Manager for the business. (Reasons, paragraph 55); e. On 15 February 2018, the Claimant sent an email to Mr Wade in which he stated that he did not think that the new work allocation process was working or even being implemented. Mr Wade responded by email saying that the allocation process had indeed been implemented. He concluded his email as follows \u201cIn simple terms, what is the point that you are making?\u201d (Reasons, paragraph 57); f. The Claimant replied some three minutes later in which he said that he \u201cmay be reading things wrong\u201d and \u201cignore me\u201d. Mr Wade responded by writing \u201cno issue at all in looking into the matter\u201d but he just needed a little more information. The Claimant replied to Mr Wade saying \u201cFeel free to handle it however you see fit Frank. I\u2019ll bow out.\u201d (Reasons, paragraph 57); g. The next morning, 16 February 2018, the Claimant sent a variety of emails, including one to a senior manager, Emma Holt in which he said that there had been numerous breaches of policy and procedure by the Respondent and that he had suffered stress and anxiety as a result. He said that he was \u201cshaking\u201d as he wrote the email and had \u201ccompletely ceased to function as a manager\u201d but that he had nevertheless decided to remain in employment with the Respondent and lodge formal complaints about it to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Association of Costs Lawyers in the hope that things would change. (Reasons, paragraph 58) h. He also sent an email to Mr Wade, copied to Ms Ross, stating that he had escalated matters both internally and externally. (Reasons, paragraph 60). Mr Wade and Ms Ross then spoke to the Claimant the same day. The Claimant\u2019s Further and Better Particulars, provided for the purpose of the ET proceedings, recorded Mr Ross as having said on that call that the Claimant had a history of sending disrespectful emails and that this needed to stop. He also recorded Mr Ross as saying that he also had a history of insubordination, such as refusing to join telephone calls. Mr Ross was also said to have said that whilst the Claimant\u2019s condition might have caused him to write the emails that he did the day before, this needed to stop. He then stated that the Claimant needed to make a decision there and then as to whether he was fit to return to his desk to work or take holidays or go back to his GP. The Claimant then hung up on the call. (Reasons, paragraph 63) i. Following the call, the Claimant sent an email to Mr Wade and Ms Ross describing it as having been \u201cthe most shocking thing\u201d he had ever been subjected to. Of the email, the ET said as follows: \u201c66\u2026\u2026..The content of the e-mail was, without wishing to be disrespectful to the claimant, rather garbled, and it seemed to us that, at times or greatest stress, the Claimant did type and send emails which were rather incoherent and contained a number of typographical errors, in contrast to his usual emails which were properly typed and coherently expressed. 67. In the e-mail, the Claimant made reference to not being insubordinate, not having a history of disrespectful emails, and not having to go back to his GP, for more tablets and more time off. Those comments clearly referenced those matters which in our view, confirmed that they had been discussed during the conversation. However, our conclusions were that the call was made by Mr Wade and Ms Ross with good intentions and without having any clear understanding of the Claimant's mental state at the time. 68. Whilst it may have been better for Ms Ross not to have made reference to insubordination or disrespectful emails, we noted that, even by the Claimants own assertion in his further and better particulars document, Mr Wade indicated that it was understood that those matters could have arisen due to his illness. We also noted that the call arose following the Claimant\u2019s emails of the morning in which he had escalated matters to very high levels within the Respondents group internally, and also indicated that he had notified external regulators. In our view, therefore, it was not surprising that Miss Ross and Mr Wade may have been a little defensive on the call and may have been keen to impress upon the Claimant that sending emails of that sort may not have been the best way of going about things. 69. With regard to the discussion about whether to stay in work, take leave, or go to the GP, we noted that by this stage of the conversation, the Claimant himself confirmed that he was very upset. In our view, particularly bearing in mind that the Claimant was indeed shortly afterwards granted a further period of paid leave, the references made to the decision on the Claimant\u2019s part about staying in work, taking leave, or visiting the GP, were made with the best of intentions to try to ensure that the Claimant did what was best for his health at that time.\u201d j. The ET\u2019s conclusions in relation to the allegation of harassment were then set out at paragraphs 198-204 as follows: \u201c198. Considering the application of section 26 EqA, as noted\u2026.above, in stages, we were satisfied that references to the Claimant essentially being subordinate and of having a history of inappropriate communications could be considered to be unwanted. We were not, however, satisfied that the questions about whether the claimant was fit to be at work or should take paid leave or should seek medical assistance were unwanted, as it appeared to us that Ms Ross and Mr Wade were only seeking to do what was best for the Claimant in the circumstances. 199. We then considered whether the conduct, in the form of referencing the potential for the Claimant\u2019s actions to have been viewed as insubordination and the reference to him communicating inappropriately, was related to his disability. In broad terms, we were satisfied that it was. It seemed to us that the Claimant\u2019s e-mail to Mr Wade on the evening of the of 15 February 2018, and the emails that he sent to other of the Respondent\u2019s managers by way of escalation on 16 February 2018, which were actions considered to potentially amount to insubordination and\/or to be inappropriate communications, had been triggered by the Claimant\u2019s condition. In our view, he had not been suffering from anxiety in the way that he was at the time, he would not have taken the action he did or expressed himself in the way that he did. We were therefore satisfied that the matters raised related to his disability. 200. We then considered hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him, whether the conduct had the purpose or effect of violating the Claimant\u2019s dignity, or of creating an intimidating [environment]. We saw no evidence of any motive or intent on the part of Ms Ross and Mr Wade to violate the Claimant\u2019s dignity or to create such an environment. With regard to effect, we considered that the Claimant certainly perceived that his dignity was being violated by virtue of the comments made at the meeting. However we were conscious that we also had to consider the other circumstances of the case and whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have had that effect. 201. In that regard, we were conscious of the context behind the meeting of 16 February 2018. We considered that the e-mail exchange between the Claimant and Mr Wade on 15 February had been anodyne, and that Mr Wade and Miss Ross would have understandably been somewhat on the defensive as a result of the allegations made by the Claimant to Mr Wade directly in his e-mail on the evening of 15 February, and by the escalation of matters by the Claimant on 16 February to more senior people within the Respondent\u2019s organisation. Consequently, we felt it was not unreasonable for Mr Wade and Ms Ross to wish to speak to the Claimant on 16 February. We also did not consider that it was unreasonable at that time for Ms Ross and Mr Wade to be somewhat critical of the Claimant\u2019s actions and to point out the way in which they could be perceived. 202. We noted that, by that stage, the Claimant had had a period of sickness absence by reason of anxiety and, therefore that Ms Ross and Mr Wade were aware of the Claimant\u2019s condition, but we do not consider that they would reasonably have been fully aware of the Claimant\u2019s difficulties at that time. We also noted, in the Claimant\u2019s summary of the meeting in his further and better particulars document, that Mr Wade indicated that the Claimant\u2019s condition might have caused his actions, and that ultimately the call moved on to discussing whether the Claimant was fit to be in work at that time. Whilst, as we have noted, the Claimant took issue with that discussion, in our view that was simply an attempt by Ms Ross and Mr Wade to check that the Claimant was fit to be in work, and we anticipate that this was largely driven by the Claimant\u2019s reaction at that time. \u2026\u2026. 204. Overall, in our view, we did not consider that, taking into account the overarching circumstances, it was reasonable to conclude that the Respondent\u2019s conduct, in the form of raising issues of potential insubordination and inappropriate communication, should be considered to have had the effect of violating the Claimants dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him. We considered that, had the Claimant\u2019s managers made similar comments subsequently, i.e. in circumstances when they would have been more on notice of the impact of their words on the Claimant, then a harassment claim would have been made out, But in the circumstances that applied on 16 February 2018, it was not.\u201d The Unfair Dismissal Claim \u2013 Findings by the Employment Tribunal 9. With regard to the Claimant\u2019s claim of unfair dismissal, the key findings of the ET were as follows: a. The Respondent operated its costs drafting business under the trading name of Compass Costs Solutions from 2016 onwards. The Claimant was employed in that business, initially as a Costs Manager and then with the job title Costs Resolution Manager (\u201cCRM\u201d), based in the Respondent\u2019s Cardiff office. (Reasons, paragraph 36) b. In October 2018, \u201cfollowing budgetary discussions as part of the Respondent\u2019s normal budget forecast process in August and September, the Respondent\u2019s Personal Injury Division had been tasked with reviewing and reducing the overall headcount to maximise efficiency. This included the Compass Cost team [of which the Claimant was a part]. Mr Jarvis, as the Managing director for Personal Injury Services, supported by Miss Grewal, undertook this review.\u201d (Reasons, paragraph 118) c. The ET\u2019s Reasons then continued as follows: \u201c119. He [Mr Jarvis] noted that the ratio of team members to the CRM in Cardiff was smaller than the ratios in the other offices. In Cardiff, the CRM was in charge of a team of approximately 6; In Manchester, the CRM was in charge of a team of approximately 14; and in Liverpool, two CRM's were in charge of approximately 23 team members. The three Southern offices, amounting to 11 employees, were managed by one CRM in London\u2026\u2026 \u2026\u2026 122. Following the identification of the potential to make the role of CRM in Cardiff redundant being confirmed, Mr Morris [the Respondent\u2019s Head of Costs for the Compass Group] was contacted by Ms Ross to take charge of the consultation with the Claimant. This appears to have been done due to Mr Morris\u2019 experience of dealing with internal HR matters including redundancies. A note taken by Mr Morris of his discussion with Ms Ross noted that Ms Ross had explained that the Claimant had brought three grievances and two tribunal claims, and he had been through occupational health processes and had been very unwell. The note recorded that Ms Ross told Mr Morris that the Claimant could not deal with some duties, and that two senior drafters were running the office. The note also recorded the other CRM's in the other offices and stated that that structure was not in place in Cardiff. 123. Mr Morris\u2019 evidence which we accepted, was that he was extremely reluctant to undertake the consultation. He was focusing on his role as the head of NIHL, which included, at the time, the management of the collective redundancies in Leeds. His evidence was also that he was unhappy that he was being asked to undertake such a role due to the fact that other managers had not been trained up to perform it. Ultimately, however, following Ms Ross\u2019 explanation about the issues that had arisen with the Claimant in recent times, Mr Morris accepted that he would undertake the role of managing the redundancy consultation process with him.\u201d d. The Tribunal later set out its specific findings in relation to unfair dismissal at paragraph 150 \u2013 175. Of particular importance in the context of this appeal are the following findings: i. Although there was a lack of documentation around the redundancy decision and process, the ET was \u201csatisfied that the reason for the Claimant\u2019s dismissal had been redundancy.\u201d (Reasons, paragraph 152) ii. \u201cWe noted that the statutory definition of redundancy was made out in that there was a reduction in [the] requirement for employees to carry out work of the particular kind carried out by the Claimant in the Cardiff office. In that respect, we noted the lower ratio within the Cardiff office of manager to other staff within the costs team, and also that two senior drafters within the Cardiff team had taken on the [Claimant\u2019s] duties during his two lengthy periods of absence in December 2018 to January 2019, and June, July and August 2018. Indeed as the Claimant had himself confirmed in his discussions with the occupational health adviser, and in other emails, even when he had returned, he was only undertaking a limited part of his duties with the balance being managed by the two senior drafters.\u201d (Reasons, paragraph 153) iii. \u201cIn the light of those points and the overall drive of the Respondent\u2019s organisation to reduce costs and improve efficiencies wherever possible, we were satisfied that a redundancy situation existed and therefore that redundancy was the reason for dismissal.\u201d (Reasons, paragraph 154) iv. \u201cWe noted the Claimant\u2019s contentions that the redundancy was, in effect, a sham, and that the underlying reason for dismissing him was either his health and his sickness absences or the fact that he had raised grievances, and indeed brought tribunal claims about his bonuses. We noted that he felt he particularly felt that Ms Ross, the HR manager with responsibility for the cost business, was motivated to manipulate his dismissal in that regard. However, we took account of Mr Morris\u2019 evidence that he had to be persuaded to undertake the role of managing the redundancy consultation with the Claimant, and that he was \u201chis own man\u201d, who had, in the past, reached decisions on internal HR matters which were not those that had been felt appropriate by immediate line management, e.g. he had upheld appeals against disciplinary sanctions. We considered that if there had been any underlying motivation from within the cost business itself, whether from Mr Jarvis or Ms Ross or both, then they would have managed the redundancy process themselves, and would not have brought in a relatively independent person to make the ultimate decision.\u201d (Reasons, paragraph 155) v. \u201cWe also noted the evidence of Miss Grewal that Miss Ross played no part in the identification of the Claimant\u2019s role as potentially redundant, and would never have played any part in that decision, bearing in mind that HR's role is simply to assist with the implementation of strategic decisions by management. Overall, therefore, whilst the Claimant\u2019s health and the concerns he had raised may have been in the background, and in our view may have made it a little easier for the Respondent to take the decision that the termination of his employment by reason of redundancy should be explored, we were satisfied that redundancy was the reason, or certainly the principal reason for his dismissal.\u201d (Reasons, paragraph 156) vi. As far as redundancy consultation and pooling were concerned, the Claimant was effectively in a pool of one in the role of CRM in the Cardiff office and that the possibility of pooling the Claimant with other CRMs in other offices was considered but rejected (Reasons, paragraphs 159-161) with the ultimate result that \u201cidentifying the Claimant as being in a pool of one\u201d was within the range of reasonable responses that was open to the Respondent (Reasons, paragraph 162). The other pooling option \u2013 pooling with Mr Morris himself \u2013 was found to be never a realistic option (Reasons, paragraph 163). There had also been reasonable consultation with the Claimant prior to the point at which the decision to dismiss was made (Reasons, paragraph 164). vii. The dismissal was however unfair for the reasons set out in paragraph 169, namely: \u201c\u2026we considered that a reasonable employer, acting reasonably in the circumstances, would have allowed the employee the opportunity to appeal against the redundancy decision. Notwithstanding that there had been a reasonable consultation process and that, in the circumstances of this case, a relatively independent manager had been brought in to manage the redundancy consultation process and to make the final decision as to whether the Claimant should be made redundant, we considered that it would have been appropriate for the Claimant to have had the opportunity to lodge an appeal against that decision and to have that appeal considered by another of the Respondent\u2019s managers.\u201d Legal Framework \u2013 Unlawful Deduction from Wages 10. Section 13(1)Employment Rights Act 1996 (\u201cERA\u201d) creates the right not to suffer unauthorised deductions from \u201cwages\u201d. \u201cWages\u201d is then defined in section 27(1) as follows (and in so far as is relevant to the issues in this appeal): \u201cIn this part, \u201cwages\u201d in relation to a worker, means any sums payable to the worker in connection with his employment, including \u2013 (a) any fee, bonus, commission, holiday pay or other emolument referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract or otherwise,\u201d 11. Whilst it is therefore clear that claims for unpaid bonus may be advanced in the ET under section 23 ERA, this does not represent the end of the story. The question of extent to which an ET can consider a bonus claim under section 23 was looked at by the Court of Appeal in Coors Brewery v Adcock & others [2007] ICR 983.In that case, the Claimants sought to recover unpaid bonuses as unlawful deductions from their wages based on an entitlement under a profit share scheme operated by the Respondent pursuant to which they were entitled to what they calculated as being between 4 and 5% of their annual wages. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the Respondent on the basis that the Claimant\u2019s case at its highest established no more than an obligation on the employer to put in place a scheme which, properly and fairly operated, was capable of replicating the benefits of an earlier scheme. If the replacement scheme on which they relied, did not fulfil that obligation, the Claimants would have suffered loss. However, given that that loss was unquantified and given that the Claimants were requiring the ET to quantify it, the claim was one for damages for breach of contract which fell outside the scope of potential claims for unlawful deduction of wages for the purposes of section 13 ERA. In giving the lead judgment in the Court of Appeal, Wall LJ (at paragraph 46) said this: \u201cIn my judgment, the underlying facts of Delaney v Staples are a paradigm of the circumstances in which Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is designed to operate. The employee complains that there has been an unlawful deduction from his wages. He has not been paid an identified sum. He makes a claim under Part II. The employer may have a number of defences. Those defences may raise issues of fact. Those issues will be for the tribunal to determine. But the underlying premise on which the case is brought is that the employee is owed a specific sum of money by way of wages which he asserts has not been paid to him. That, it seems to me, is the proper context both of Delaney v Staples and Part II of the 1996 Act.\u201d 12. His Lordship continued (at paragraph 49) by accepting that a non-contractual bonus can constitute wages within section 13 and can found the basis of a claim under Part II ERA but that there would still need to be an \u201cidentified amount\u201d for this to be the case. Then (at paragraph 56) he said this: \u201cPart II of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as I read it, is essentially designed for straightforward claims where the employee can point to a quantified loss. It was designed to be a swift and summary procedure.\u201d Legal Framework \u2013 Harassment under Section 26 Equality Act 2010 13. Section 26 EqA provides as follows: \u201c(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if\u2014 (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of\u2014 (i) violating B's dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026.. (4) In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account\u2014 (a) the perception of B; (b) the other circumstances of the case; (c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. (5)The relevant protected characteristics are\u2014 \u2026\u2026 disability;\u201d 14. Assuming that the relevant protected characteristic has been established (as it was in this case), there is then a step-by-step process that the ET has to go through before a harassment claim will succeed. In particular, it must consider: — Has there been unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic? — If so, did that conduct have the purpose or effect of either: \u25e6 Violating the Claimant\u2019s dignity, or \u25e6 Creating an intimidating etc environment for him? — In considering the \u201ceffect\u201d question, did the conduct have that effect having regard to: \u25e6 The Claimant\u2019s perception; \u25e6 The other circumstances of the case; \u25e6 Whether it was reasons for the conduct to have that effect. Legal Framework \u2013 Unfair Dismissal 15. The first issue for a Tribunal to determine in an unfair dismissal case is what was the reason for dismissal, with redundancy being a potentially fair reason within section 98(2) ERA. The burden of establishing the reason (and that it is a potentially fair one) falls on the employer under section 98(1) ERA. Once a potentially fair reason is established, a neutral burden arises under section 98(4) ERA at which point the Tribunal has to consider whether the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating that reason as sufficient reason for dismissal. It is well established in the authorities that, generally speaking, the reason for dismissal will be determined by examining the set of facts known to the employer or the beliefs held by him which cause him to dismiss the employee \u2013 see Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson [1974] ICR 323. 16. It will sometimes be the case that a Tribunal will be entitled to look beyond the mind of the immediate decision maker in order to establish the true reason for dismissal \u2013 see for example Jhuti v Royal Mail [2020] IRLR 129. Thus where an innocent \u2018dismissing\u2019 manager has been manipulated by others within the employer\u2019s organisation, an ET is entitled to look to what was in the mind of those responsible for the manipulation in order to determine the true reason for dismissal. The Appeal \u2013 Ground 1 — Unlawful Deduction 17. The Claimant essentially advanced three points under this head: a. The ET had failed properly to address the definition of \u201cwage\u201d in section 27(1)(a) and in particular had taken a narrow view of contractual terms that applied to the Claimant\u2019s employment; b. The ET had failed to treat the Claimant\u2019s entitlement to bonus as having transferred under TUPE; c. The ET had failed to engage with the issue of \u201cemployer discretion\u201d in relation to his entitlement to bonus and should have made an evaluation of the exercise of that discretion. 18. Under Ground 1(a), the focus of the Claimant\u2019s criticisms in his oral submissions to me was that the ET had erroneously interpreted his claim as being one for breach of contract (at paragraphs 205 and 206 of its Reasons). His Notice of Appeal (in the form of that set out by HHJ Tucker and then adopted by him) was that the ET had erred in that it: \u201cfailed to have proper regard to s.27(1) ERA which defines \u2018wages\u2019 as \u201cany sum payable to a worker in connection with his employment\u201d and failed to consider the Claimant\u2019s contractual terms as a whole as set out within his written contract dated 19 February 2023 and the attached Annexes.\u201d 19. The reference to a contract dated 2023 is plainly a typographical error as the relevant contract dated from February 2015. The rival contentions on this point were set out by the ET at paragraph 20 of its Reasons \u2013 the Claimant\u2019s case was that he was entitled to bonuses at the particular levels that he claimed \u2013 the Respondent\u2019s case was that any entitlement (under his contract) was discretionary and did not therefore give rise to an ascertainable sum that could properly be described as \u201cwages\u201d. The ET then recorded (at Reasons, paragraph 205) that the Claimant had himself sought to rely on the bonus terms which were set out in the appendix to the letter that had been provided to him when his employment originally transferred from LAC in 2015. The ET then, as one would expect, focussed its attention on that term and, at paragraph 206, noted that the Respondent\u2019s bonus scheme was \u201cdiscretionary and non-contractual and that participation was subject to eligibility.\u201d 20. The ET then say as follows \u2013 at paragraph 207 \u2013 that it: \u201cagreed with the submission made by the Respondent that there cannot be a contractual right to a non-contractual bonus save potentially where the employer\u2019s actions may be said to give rise to a contractual entitlement e.g. by virtue of custom and practice.\u201d 21. I am not entirely sure why the ET went down this route in addressing the Claimant\u2019s claim for a bonus for 2017 given that the wording of section 27(1)(a) ERA makes it clear that within the scope of the definition of \u201cwages\u201d is any bonus \u201cwhether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise\u201d. That being so, a claim could potentially be advanced by way of a complaint of an unlawful deduction under section 23 ERA even if it was for a sum which was due as a consequence of a non-contractual bonus not being paid. From the content of paragraphs 207 and 208 of the ET decision, it does appear that they seek to answer this part of the Claimant\u2019s claims not by reference to the definition of \u201cwages\u201d in section 27 ERA but on the basis of treating that claim as one for breach of contract with their conclusion being that: — the Claimant had an entitlement to a discretionary bonus; — that discretion was exercised to produce a figure of \u00a33,400 payable for 2017 — in the absence of any arguments based on custom and practice entitling him to a higher sum or any arguments to the effect that the discretion had been exercised perversely, that was the end of the matter as far as his 2017 and 2018 bonus claims were concerned. 22. In this respect therefore, the ET appear to have fallen into error in failing to approach the unlawful deduction claim by reference to the definition of wages. However, I do not believe that this leads to a conclusion that the appeal should be allowed on this point or that the claim should be remitted to a fresh ET for rehearing. My reasons for this are that had the ET addressed the question by reference to section 27 ERA and the Court of Appeal in Coors Brewery, it would inevitably have still dismissed the claim. Under the terms of the 2015 contract, as identified by the ET, any entitlement that the Claimant had to bonus was indeed clearly subject to a discretion and could not on any view be said to be an entitlement to an ascertainable sum that could be recovered as a consequence of a complaint made under section 23 ERA. Thus one comes to the same outcome in terms of the success or otherwise of that claim. Therefore, whilst the ET appear to have fallen into error, it made no difference to the outcome and this part of the appeal falls to be dismissed either on that basis or on the basis that, for the reasons set out below, the Respondent\u2019s cross-appeal on this point succeeds with the effect that the claim for unpaid wages remains dismissed. Indeed, the arguments advanced by the Claimant and the authorities referred to in his Skeleton Argument, serve to demonstrate that his argument is focussed on an assertion that the ET should have scrutinised the contract more closely in order to test whether the Respondent, in exercising its discretion, had done so rationally and without caprice. Thus, these arguments \u2013 and in particular ground 1(c), serve to illustrate that the case that the Claimant advances is based on an improper exercise of a discretionary power with regard to bonus rather than advancing a claim to a particular sum which had resulted from the exercise of that discretion and which had not been paid. 23. The same analysis applies to the Claimant\u2019s claim for pro rata bonus for 2018 in respect of which the ET relied (at paragraph 209 of its Reasons) on the fact that under the Claimant\u2019s contract, he was only eligible for the payment of bonus if he was employed at the point at which any such bonus came to be paid. Whilst the 2018 pro rata bonus claim was determined on the basis of an analysis of the contractual terms, the effect of the ET\u2019s conclusion is that at the date at which his employment came to an end, the Claimant was not eligible to receive any bonus payment and therefore could not properly claim to have suffered an unlawful deduction from his wages. Any discretion on the part of the employer had not been exercised at that point. 24. Whilst it is correct that the ET recorded the Claimant\u2019s claim for 2017 as being for \u00a320,830, and whilst he sought to put forward a similar figure to me in the course of his submissions, I did not regard him as putting forward an argument based on an entitlement to an ascertainable sum in the Coors sense \u2013 rather he was saying that a proper exercise by the Respondent of its contractual discretion should have resulted in him receiving that amount. In addition, neither in his Grounds of Appeal nor his Skeleton Argument, did he advance the case on the basis that an entitlement to that figure had in fact arisen and remained unpaid. Similarly, in his ET1, the case was put on the basis that he was entitled to in excess of \u00a320,000 without a precise or ascertainable figure being set out. The claim therefore in my view has always been on based on an alleged failure by the Respondent to properly exercise its contractual power in relation to bonus as opposed to a bonus having been determined as a consequence of such exercise and then not actually paid to the Claimant. 25. Turning to Ground 1(b), this advances the case that the ET had fallen into error in concluding that the Claimant\u2019s contractual entitlement to bonus \u201chad not transferred under the TUPE Regulations (see in particular paragraph 207 of the Reasons)\u201d. In his Skeleton Argument produced for the purpose of this appeal, the Claimant asserted that it was \u201ccommon ground\u201d that TUPE applied to his transfer to the Respondent on 30 April 2016 but he goes on to suggest that the ET did not treat his entitlement to bonus as having transferred to the Respondent as at that date. That does not appear to have been the ET\u2019s finding. In their Reasons at paragraphs 31 and 32, the ET had recorded that there had been an earlier transfer from LAC to S&G UK 1 in May 2015. The Claimant had then \u201cconfirmed in his evidence\u201d that the terms on offer at that point (and which were those contained in the letter of 19 February 2015) were improvements on his LAC terms and included the bonus terms set out at paragraph 33 of the Reasons and contained in the schedule to the Claimant\u2019s contract of employment. The ET recorded at paragraph 32 of its Reasons that: \u201c\u2026..the terms proposed by Slater and Gordon [as part of the transfer that occurred in May 2015] were improvements on he terms he previously enjoyed with Leo Abse and Cohen and therefore he was happy to accept them and did not rely on any transferred provision of his Leo Abse & Cohen terms.\u201d 26. Under those terms, the Claimant had, as recorded by the ET at paragraph 39 of its Reasons, received a bonus payment in October 2016 in the sum of \u00a320,830 for FY2016 (from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016). The ET also noted (at Reasons, paragraph s 34 and 35) that whilst there had been a further TUPE transfer on 30 April 2016, there had been no further contractual changes, \u201cwith the contract entered into in February 2015 continuing to apply\u201d. I therefore do not accept that the ET made any error in paragraph 207 of their decision \u2013 the Reasons proceed on the basis that the terms set out in the letter of 19 February 2015 (and under which bonus entitlement was discretionary) continued to apply after the Respondent became the employer in 2016. 27. Turning to Ground 1(c), here the suggestion is that the ET, following on from the error asserted under Ground 1(b), should have considered what the Claimant\u2019s entitlement was to bonus \u201ctaking into account its stated discretionary status and established legal principles that that discretion should not be exercised in an irrational or capricious manner\u201d. I remind myself that the Claimant was advancing claims that he had been subjected to an unlawful deduction from wages. As set out above, in order to be able to advance such a claim based on unpaid (or underpaid) bonus, it would be necessary for him to show that his entitlement to bonus had crystallised into an ascertainable amount which had then not been paid. Even if the ET concluded that the Respondent\u2019s decisions as to the level of bonus which the Claimant was paid were reached as a result of an irrational or capricious exercise of discretion, they would not be in a position to determine what the correct figure was \u2013 i.e. it was not \u2018ascertainable\u2019 \u2013 with result that the claim would not fall within the jurisdiction set out in Part I ERA. This was not a claim for breach of contract and the ET cannot be criticised for not considering whether the Respondent had acted irrationally or capriciously in determining the levels of bonus to be paid to the Claimant. The Appeal \u2013 Ground 2 — Harassment 28. The Claimant attacks the finding set out in paragraph 204 of the ET Reasons that it was not reasonable to conclude that the Respondent\u2019s conduct had the effect of violating his dignity or creating an intimidating etc environment for him. On the second day of the appeal, I allowed the Claimant to make a modest revision to the wording of Ground 2.1(a) so as to read that the error of the ET was that it \u201crelied on the knowledge of the two individuals involved in the telephone call on 16 February 2018 in determining the question of the effect of their conduct on the Claimant\u201d (the italicised words being the ones that I allowed the Claimant to adopt). I did not accept that there was any prejudice to the Respondent in allowing the Claimant the opportunity to put his case in a way that reflected the terms of the amendment to Ground 2.1(a). 29. Under Ground 2.1(b) the Claimant alleged that the ET had come to a perverse finding in stating that \u201chad the Claimant\u2019s managers made similar comments subsequently, i.e. in circumstances when they would have been on notice of the impact of their words on the Claimant, then a harassment claim would have been made out.\u201d He then set out a number of pieces of evidence which he said should have been considered and which would have resulted in a different conclusion in relation to his harassment claim had this been done by the ET. 30. The key findings, which I have already set out above, can be summarised briefly as follows: — The harassment issue centred on a phone call on 16 February 2018 between the Claimant and Mr Wade and Ms Ross which had followed a series of emails that the Claimant had sent over the past few days (Reasons, paragraphs 57, 58);- Mr Wade and Ms Ross had made the call with good intentions and without a clear understanding of the Claimant\u2019s condition (Reasons, paragraph 67);- It was not surprising (given the content of the Claimant\u2019s emails over the past couple of days) that Mr Wade and Ms Ross were \u201ca little defensive\u201d on the phone call but the call as a whole was done with good intentions, including the discussion about the Claimant visiting the GP or returning to work (Reasons, paragraph 69). 31. The ET found that it was not reasonable to conclude that the Respondent\u2019s conduct had the effect of violating the Claimant\u2019s dignity or creating an intimidating etc environment for him (Reasons, paragraph 204). The Claimant\u2019s case on this point is that the ET should not have relied on the state of knowledge of the two individuals involved in the call but should have looked more widely at what was known by others within the Respondent and also at other events relating to the Claimant himself. Given the findings of the ET that the call by Mr Wade and Ms Ross was made with good intention, it is not surprising that they reached the conclusion (at Reasons, paragraph 200) that they found \u201cno evidence of any motive or intent\u201d on the part of either or them to violate the Claimant\u2019s dignity or to create the relevantly adverse environment for him. This meant that the issue of \u201cpurpose" fell away which then left with ET to consider the question of \u201ceffect\u201d as the other limb of section 26(1)(b) EqA under which harassment might be established. As to that, the ET was required to take into account the matters set out in section 26(4). As to that, they accepted that the perception of the Claimant was that his dignity was being violated, in particular as a result of comments made regarding \u201cinsubordination and inappropriate communication\u201d. They were then required to look at \u201cthe other circumstances of the case\u201d. As to what comprise \u201cthe other circumstances of the case\u201d, this, it seems to me will depend on the context in which the allegation arises and, in some circumstances, might involve a wider examination than that conducted by the ET on this occasion. However, it is clear from their decision that they did examine those circumstances which they regarded as bearing on this question and having done so, concluded that it was not reasonable for the conduct to have had the effect on the Claimant that it did. In circumstances in which the ET had concluded that the two managers had only a limited understanding of the Claimant\u2019s condition and had \u201cgood intentions\u201d in looking to speak to him on 16 February 2018, it is in my view, not possible to conclude that there was an error of law in their approach. Even if there was a wider \u201cawareness of the [Claimant\u2019s] disability\u201d within the Respondent (as the Claimant suggested in his Skeleton Argument), the ET was entitled to reach the conclusion that it did, having regard to the particular factors that it relied on, namely that objectively (through the lens provided under section 26(4)(c)), it was not reasonable for the conduct to have had the effect that it did on the Claimant. This is essentially a question of fact for the ET to decide and the circumstances in which the EAT could interfere with their conclusion is limited and in my view, do not arise in this case. Ground 2.1(a) therefore fails. 32. As to Ground 2.1(b), as the Claimant accepts, this is a perversity appeal, based on an alleged failure to take account of wider evidence, allegations or findings. Given the way in which the ET dealt with the harassment question at paragraphs 197-204 of their Reasons, and given the findings that they made within those paragraphs with regards to the reasons that lay behind the call being held on 16 February 2018, I do not see any basis on which it could be said that their conclusions were perverse. The Appeal \u2013 Ground 3 \u2013 Unfair Dismissal 33. Four grounds are raised under this heading. Under Ground 3.1, it is suggested that the ET, having concluded that there was a \u201credundancy situation\u201d then \u201cfailed properly to consider whether the reason for the Claimant\u2019s dismissal was redundancy.\u201d The focus of this part of the Claimant\u2019s appeal is on a sentence contained in paragraph 154 of the ET\u2019s Reasons in which they say that \u201cwe are satisfied that a redundancy situation existed and therefore that redundancy was the reason for dismissal.\u201d The Claimant suggests that this finding leads to the conclusion that the ET focussed on the existence of a \u201credundancy situation\u201d and as a result failed to conduct a proper examination of what was the true reason for dismissal. I do not believe that this criticism is valid. The ET directed themselves on the law relating to unfair dismissal at paragraphs 11-18 of their Reasons. In particular: — At paragraph 11, they had reminded themselves that a key focus was \u201cthe reason for dismissal\u201d and noted that the Respondent was arguing that that reason was redundancy whereas the Claimant was seeking to put forward a competing reason, in the form of an assertion by him of a statutory right; — At paragraph 12, they acknowledged that the reason for dismissal also impacted on his disability-based claims; — At paragraph 13, they noted that the burden of establishing the reason for dismissal lay with the Respondent; — At paragraph 14, they recorded that where the reason advanced was redundancy, it was still necessary to address the question of whether any \u2018redundancy situation\u2019 was in fact the cause of the dismissal. 34. It is clear from the above, that the ET was alive to the fact that even where a \u2018redundancy situation\u2019 was found to exist, there was still a further step to be taken to determine whether that situation was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. 35. Moving on specifically to paragraph 154, this contents of this part of the Reasons, needs to be read alongside the other paragraphs in the decision in which the ET deal with the reason for dismissal. Those paragraphs can be summarised as follows: — At paragraph 150, they set out the correct issue arising from the Respondent\u2019s assertion as to the reason for dismissal \u2013 firstly, that there was a \u201cgenuine redundancy situation\u201d and secondly that this was the reason for dismissal; — At paragraph 151, they concluded that the Claimant\u2019s role had been identified as potentially redundant as a consequence of budgetary discussions; — At paragraph 152, they stated that, even though there was a lack of documentary evidence, they were still satisfied that the reason for the Claimant\u2019s dismissal was redundancy; — At paragraph 153, they tested whether a redundancy situation in fact existed and concluded, with particular reference to the Claimant\u2019s employment, that it did; — At paragraph 155, they addressed the Claimant\u2019s \u2018competing reason\u2019 argument and concluded that this was not made out given the independence of Mr Morris who conducted the consultation process; — At paragraph 156, they gave further reasons for rejecting the competing reason argument and having done so, again stated that they were \u201csatisfied that redundancy was the reason, or certainly the principal reason, for dismissal.\u201d — At paragraph 157, they formally rejected the Claimant\u2019s competing reason case. 36. It is therefore clear in my view that when one reads the decision of the ET as a whole, they have not been guilty of any error of law in the way in which they examined the reason for dismissal. They recognised that there was what is commonly referred to as a \u201credundancy situation\u201d; they considered whether this had in fact led to the decision to terminate the Claimants employment and, when placed alongside the Claimant\u2019s competing reason argument, they concluded that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. 37. Under Ground 3.2, the Claimant suggests that the ET erred in failing to identify the relevant decision maker and to focus on what was in that person\u2019s mind rather than on what was \u201cmerely communicated to the Claimant by the dismissing officer (Mr Morris).\u201d Again, it seems to me that this criticism is not based on a fair reading of the ET decision as a whole. In particular, at paragraph 122, the ET noted that Mr Morris was approached to manage the consultation process after the \u201cpotential to make the [Claimant\u2019s] role of CRM in Cardiff redundant\u201d had been identified by Mr Jarvis and Ms Grewal. There was then an extensive consultation conducted by Mr Morris which was reviewed by the ET at paragraphs 125-138 and which concluded with Mr Morris considering matters and concluding that the redundancy should be confirmed. The ET was clearly alive to the fact that the initial identification of the role as potentially redundant had not been done by Mr Morris but he was \u201chis own man\u201d who had overturned line management decisions in the past \u2013 rather he was (as set out in paragraph 155 of the Reasons) \u201ca relatively independent person [brought in] to make the ultimate decision. 38. Bearing in mind these findings, and the fact that the ET expressly considered (and rejected) the Claimant\u2019s competing reasons arguments as explaining the true reason for his dismissal, I do not consider that Mr Morris can be said (as set out under Ground 3.2) to have \u201cmerely communicated\u201d the decision to dismiss. It is clear from a fair reading of the ET\u2019s decision, that they regarded him as having independently reached his own conclusion that the Claimant should be dismissed and that the reason for this was redundancy. 39. In paragraph 155 of their Reasons, the ET stated that the Claimant \u201cparticularly felt that Ms Ross, the HR manager with responsibility for the costs business was motivated to manipulate his dismissal\u201d due to the fact that he had had sick absences, raised grievances and brought Tribunal claims regarding bonus \u2013 this argument was then rejected by the ET for the reasons set out in paragraph 155 and 156, including that Ms Ross had in fact played no part even in identifying the Claimant\u2019s role as potentially redundant. In terms of identifying \u201cwhat factors were in the mind of the dismissing officer\u201d, the ET\u2019s finding was of course that this was Mr Morris, not Mr Ross. In any event, the key question for the ET to examine was the Claimant\u2019s competing reason argument \u2013 this they did and gave reasons why they did not accept the Claimant\u2019s contentions. 40. Under Ground 3.3, the Claimant asserts that the ET did not consider relevant evidence which supported his case and which he contended would have supported his competing reason arguments. In that regard, he placed particular emphasis on an email that he had sent on 28 September 2018 (mistakenly referred to in the Grounds of Appeal as 28 August 2018) which he described a \u201ccry for help email\u201d. He noted that whilst this had been sent to Ms Grewal and Mr Jarvis (and copied to two others employed by the Respondent), it had not been sent to Ms Ross and yet she had got hold of it and sent a reply on 23 October 2018 to one of the original recipients in which she said \u201cJust an FYI that I am dealing with this, so don\u2019t take any action.\u201d She suggested that Ms Ross must have deleted this email and yet she sent an email a few days later (on 5 November 2018) to Mr Morris setting out a suggested rationale for the Claimant\u2019s dismissal on redundancy grounds and an invitation for him to begin the consultation process. 41. Dealing first with the Claimant\u2019s email of 28 September 2018, the ET noted this in their Reasons at paragraph 11, recording that the Claimant had felt devalued and that no one appeared to care about him. As far as Ms Ross\u2019 email of 5 November 2018, the ET noted this at paragraph 124 of their Reasons and must be taken to have been aware of its contents at the point at which they addressed the Claimant\u2019s competing reason arguments at paragraphs 155 and 156 of their decision. 42. As far as the third document relied on by the Claimant is concerned (the email of 23 October 2018 from Ms Ross to Niva Reitz), it was accepted by Mr Quickfall on behalf of the Respondent, that this had not been addressed directly by the ET in its Reasons. He suggested however that this was one page in a 1300-page bundle which the ET had to deal with and that it was not given the focus then that it had now assumed in the EAT. He also noted that the document was not referred to either in the Claimant\u2019s ET1 or in his witness statement. Whilst the former may well be explicable on the basis that the Claimant may not have been aware of it at the point at which he drafted his ET1, there is no reason to think that he would not have had sight of it by the time that he prepared his witness statement and certainly by the time that he presented his case to the ET. That being so, I do not think that the absence of an express reference to this single email can found a proper basis on which to impugn the ET\u2019s decision as a whole. In addition, given the ET\u2019s finding (at Reasons, paragraph 118) that the provisional identification of the Claimant\u2019s role as potentially redundant had happened in August and September (well before the date of the email) and (as set out at Reasons, paragraph 156), Ms Ross had played no part in that identification process, it is difficult to see that this one line email on which little emphasis was placed at the ET hearing, in fact represents a pivotal document which means that the ET decision falls to be unpicked. 43. Under Ground 3.4, the Claimant suggests that the ET has failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. I do not think that there is anything in this argument \u2013 the decision is more than adequately explained and reasoned, even with any express reference to the email of 23 October 2018. The Cross-Appeal \u2013 Grounds 1-3 \u2013 Unlawful Deduction from Wages 44. Ground 1 of the Cross-Appeal seeks to make the case that the ET, or as it is stated, the Employment Judge erred in \u201cfailing to decide whether he had jurisdiction to determine the unlawful deduction from wages claim in relation to the 2017 bonus pursuant to ss.13 and 23 ERA.\u201d The particular criticism which is then spelled out in the Respondent\u2019s Skeleton Argument is that the ET did not properly address the question of whether the Claimant was advancing a claim for \u201cwages\u201d within the definition in section 27(1) ERA. This ground clearly covers substantially the same terrain as the Claimant\u2019s Ground 1 in relation to which I have dismissed his appeal, albeit whilst at the same time recognising that the ET does appear to have fallen into error. This ground of the Cross-Appeal succeeds on the same basis, namely that I would the analysis of the ET set out in paragraphs 206-209 strongly suggests that it approached this matter as simply one based on contract and on the face of it, had erroneously proceeded on the basis that as long as any bonus was discretionary, that was an end to the Claimant\u2019s claim. As I have already stated in relation to Ground 1 of the Claimant\u2019s appeal, it is perfectly possible for a Claimant to bring an unlawful deductions claim based on an entitlement to a discretionary bonus \u2013 but only where he can point to the discretion having been exercised so as to produce an identifiable or ascertainable sum which the employer had then not paid or not paid in full. 45. Ground 2 of the Cross Appeal makes essentially the same point \u2013 namely that, given the ET\u2019s acceptance at paragraph 33 of its Reasons that bonus was to be assessed on the basis of a management analysis of achievements against set objectives, there was no quantifiable sum which could be described as \u201cwages\u201d. Again, this provides a further basis on which to allow the cross-appeal. Given the findings that the ET made as to the prevailing terms and the way in which the Claimant sought to argue his case, it is in my view inevitable that, had they applied their minds to the definition of \u201cwages\u201d in section 27 ERA as well as the guidance from the Court of Appeal in Coors Brewery, they would have concluded that they did not have jurisdiction to hear what was essentially a claim for breach of contract based on an assertion that a contractual discretion had been improperly or irrationally exercised. 46. In relation to both of these grounds however, whilst the Cross-Appeal technically succeeds on the bases set out above, the outcome is academic in that the Claimant\u2019s unlawful deductions claim ultimately fail for the reasons set out above in relation to his substantive Grounds of Appeal. 47. Under Ground 3, the Respondent asserts that the claim could not have been brought under the Tribunal\u2019s contract jurisdiction as under the Employment Tribunal (Extension of Jurisdiction) (England and Wales) Order 1994, it did not arise or was not outstanding at the date of termination of the employment. Whilst the Claimant did seek to advance bonus related claims as part of a claim for reasonable adjustments as well as on the basis that there had been an unlawful deduction from wages, he did not advance any claim by reference to the ET\u2019s contractual jurisdiction. This point therefore does not arise \u2013 the ET cannot, by way of cross-appeal or otherwise, be criticised for not addressing a claim that was not advanced before it. It may well be that in fact, this part of the Cross-Appeal is better viewed as an alternative basis on which to uphold the decision of the ET as opposed to being a ground on which to cross appeal but the point is in any event academic given the findings that I have already made in relation to the Appeal and the Cross-Appeal. The Cross-Appeal \u2013 Grounds 4-6 \u2013 Disability Related Harassment 48. Under Ground 4, the Respondent asserts that the ET erred in concluding that the Claimant\u2019s claims of harassment would have been made out if Ms Ross and Mr Wade had been on greater notice of the impact of their words on the Claimant. Given my findings in relation to the Claimant\u2019s appeal, this issue does not arise and is in any event based on a hypothetical situation which did not in fact occur. It seems to me that in paragraph 204 of their decision (in which this observation was made), the ET was doing no more than indicating that they may have seen things in a different light had the meeting on 16 February 2018 not been something of a \u2018one off\u2019 \u2013 had that been the case, the managers would have been much more likely to have been aware of the impact of their behaviour which in turn might make it more objectively reasonable for the Claimant to feel the effect of their behaviour was to create an intimidating etc environment for him. 49. Given the hypothetical nature of the findings by the ET, it is not in my view necessary to address what might have been the outcome of the Claimant\u2019s claim had circumstances been different. For those reasons, I do not propose to address further the points raised under Grounds 4-6 of the Cross Appeal. Disposal 50. For the reasons set out above, I will dismiss the Claimant\u2019s appeal and allow the Respondent\u2019s Cross-Appeal on Grounds 1 and 2 only. However, given the ultimate outcome of the Cross-Appeal, the effect of which is essentially to provide additional bases on which the ET should have rejected the Claimant\u2019s unlawful deduction claims, no consequential order follows.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SUMMARY UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES; HARASSMENT; UNFAIR DISMISSAL Unlawful deduction \u2013 the Claimant challenged the approach taken by the ET on the basis that they had not properly considered his contractual rights or the exercise by the Respondent of its discretion with regard to the award of bonus. However, the claim at all times fell outside the scope of a…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8355],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8677],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[13439,7623,7643,7975,7699],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-595152","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-employment-appeal-tribunal","kji_year-8677","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-bonus","kji_keyword-claim","kji_keyword-claimant","kji_keyword-paragraph","kji_keyword-reasons","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR Moon v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R Moon v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SUMMARY UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES; HARASSMENT; UNFAIR DISMISSAL Unlawful deduction \u2013 the Claimant challenged the approach taken by the ET on the basis that they had not properly considered his contractual rights or the exercise by the Respondent of its discretion with regard to the award of bonus. However, the claim at all times fell outside the scope of a...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"57 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\\\/\",\"name\":\"R Moon v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-18T12:57:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"R Moon v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R Moon v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"R Moon v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd","og_description":"SUMMARY UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES; HARASSMENT; UNFAIR DISMISSAL Unlawful deduction \u2013 the Claimant challenged the approach taken by the ET on the basis that they had not properly considered his contractual rights or the exercise by the Respondent of its discretion with regard to the award of bonus. However, the claim at all times fell outside the scope of a...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"57 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\/","name":"R Moon v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-18T12:57:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-moon-v-slater-gordon-uk-ltd\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"R Moon v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/595152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=595152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=595152"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=595152"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=595152"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=595152"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=595152"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=595152"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=595152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}