The claimants were migrant workers who had been employed by the defendant company.   Instead of bringing Tribunal claims, they brought breach of contract claims against the company due to unpaid wages, failure to pay minimum wage, unlawful deductions from their wages and a failure to pay holiday pay.   They also brought claims personally against the directors due to their part in inducing a breach of contract.   At a previous substantive hearing it was held that the defendant was liable, which left damages to be assessed.

In terms of the substantive decision, the High Court had already established that the claimants had proved they were working more hours than were stipulated on their payslips.   It was also clear that the amounts on the payslips were not actually paid to the claimants.  The High Court found that the failings in relation to not accounting for all hours or failing to pay the required sums was deliberate.  The formulation of the payslips was ‘fictional’ with the view that the directors were exploiting these workers. The claimants were not entitled to holidays nor given any holiday pay.  Indeed, it was found that the claimants were victims of conduct prohibited by the Modern Slavery Act 2015.  However, it must be noted that it was on the balance of probabilities - had it been a criminal charge, it would have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The exploitation was on the basis that the work was as a result of threats and deception.  Additionally, the claimants had to live in accommodation provided by the directors.  There was a deduction from wages from this, yet it was above the statutory limit of £1.50 per week.  The interesting part of the judgment is that it was held that the claimants would not be properly compensated unless there was an award of damages which took into account the effect of the exploitation.   Many of the sums had been agreed by the parties between the substantive hearing and the assessment of damages.  Yet it was held that the aggravated damages were to be at 20% in recognition of the mistreatment they had faced.   The claim for exemplary damages were not given as they are punitive rather than compensatory.  The court did not feel it necessary to give these damages considering the aggravated damages given as well as the lack of evidence relating to the profit made by the defendant company.

Practical Lessons

This case came through a breach of contract claim rather than a claim which went through the Tribunal processes.  The treatment suffered by these claimants was horrendous and not only went against their employment rights but also more fundamental rights. As a result, the mistreatment could be taken into account to ensure that there was an uplift in damages by way of aggravated damages.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/843.html