A claim for a quantum meruit payment (i.e., as much as is deserved) cannot be brought as a claim of unlawful deductions from wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).
Abellio East Midlands Ltd v Thomas [2022] EAT 20, (EA-2020-000935-OO)
What are the practical implications of this judgment?
This judgment is a reminder that employment tribunals do not have jurisdiction to hear all types of claim relating to a loss of pay. Parties should consider carefully whether a claim relating to a loss of pay fulfils all of the relevant statutory criteria so that it can be brought in an employment tribunal as a claim for unlawful deductions from wages under Part II of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) or whether it needs to be brought in a County Court or High Court as a claim for a breach of contract or for a quantum meruit. It should be noted that the rules (e.g., in relation to pleading, time limits and costs) are different if the claim is brought in a court rather than a tribunal.
This judgment also clarifies that, in a case such as this, in which the claimant has a contract of employment but is claiming for payment in respect of additional work, the question is whether the work done by the claimant fell outside the scope of his existing contract. Based on the circumstances of this case, the EAT held that the work done by the claimant did fall outside of the scope of his existing contract and he was therefore entitled to a quantum meruit (albeit he would have to bring his claim in a County Court).
Case details
Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.
Please contact us for a free, initial telephone consultation with a barrister.
In McMahon v AXA ICAS [2025] EAT 8, the EAT faced a number of issues on appeal around the payment due from a deduction of wages as well as a disability discrimination claim which was struck out by the employment tribunal. The respondent also cross-appealed a decision on deduction of wages, arguing that there was… >>
Where a claimant has failed to comply with the early conciliation (EC) requirement but the employment tribunal did not reject the claim under either Rule 10 or 12 of the ET Rules 2013 (now Rules 12 or 13 of the ET Rules 2024), the tribunal should not reject the claim at a later stage, eg… >>
In East Lancashire NHS Trust v Akram [2025] EAT 2, the EAT followed the approach set out by the Supreme Court in Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2024] IRLR 56 on how to calculate a day’s pay for holiday pay purposes. It explained that: • a person should receive… >>