Garden leave without a clause: employer's deduction for breach was unlawful
An assistant manager who was placed on garden leave without a contractual clause had his final week's pay unlawfully deducted. The tribunal awarded £538 for notice pay but dismissed his unfair dismissal claim as out of time.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Claimant worked as assistant manager from 17 September 2016 until 29 October 2022.
- Claimant gave six weeks' notice on 17 September 2022, terminating on 29 October 2022.
- Respondent placed claimant on garden leave but later deducted one week's pay for alleged breach of garden leave conditions.
- Claimant's contract did not contain a garden leave clause.
- Tips were customarily pooled for an annual staff holiday, not paid individually.
- Claimant presented unfair dismissal claim out of time; ACAS conciliation started 3 February 2023, claim presented 17 March 2023.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent's sports bar as assistant manager.
-
Claimant gave notice
Claimant tendered six weeks' notice, to terminate on 29 October 2022.
-
Respondent placed claimant on garden leave
Respondent emailed claimant stating they would pay notice but not require work, placing him on garden leave.
-
Written warning issued
Respondent gave claimant a written warning setting out garden leave terms, including no contact with colleagues.
-
Contract ended
Claimant's notice period expired; contract terminated on this date.
-
Payslip issued with deduction
Respondent sent payslip stating 'contract terminated due to conditions of garden leave broken' and did not pay final week's notice.
-
ACAS conciliation started
Claimant commenced early conciliation with ACAS.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing and judgment
Employment Judge Wade held a preliminary hearing and issued judgment dismissing unfair dismissal claim but allowing unlawful deduction claim for £538.
The legal issue
Whether the employer could lawfully deduct a week's notice pay when the claimant was placed on garden leave without a contractual right to do so, and whether the unfair dismissal claim was presented within the three-month time limit.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it was presented out of time: the effective date of termination was 29 October 2022, ACAS conciliation started on 3 February 2023, and the claim was presented on 17 March 2023 – beyond the three-month limit.
However, the unlawful deduction claim succeeded. The employer had no contractual right to impose garden leave conditions, and the deduction of £538 for the final week's notice pay was unlawful.
- Unlawful deduction award: £538 (gross, representing one week's notice pay)
- Tips claim: dismissed – tips were customarily pooled for an annual staff holiday, not individual property.
Lessons & takeaways
- If your contract doesn't include a garden leave clause, your employer cannot unilaterally impose conditions on your notice period.
- Unfair dismissal claims must be presented to the tribunal within three months of the effective date of termination – including time for ACAS conciliation.
- Tips pooled for staff benefits (like a holiday) are not wages owed to you individually, so a claim for unlawful deduction of tips is unlikely to succeed.
- A payslip deduction for an alleged breach of an unenforceable garden leave condition is likely an unlawful deduction from wages.
When garden leave goes wrong
This case shows what can happen when an employer tries to impose garden leave conditions without a contractual right to do so. The assistant manager had given six weeks' notice, expecting to work it, but the employer placed him on paid leave. Later, they issued a written warning setting out garden leave terms – including a ban on contacting colleagues – and then deducted a week's pay for an alleged breach.
The tribunal was clear: without a garden leave clause in the contract, the employer could not unilaterally impose those conditions. The deduction was therefore unlawful.
The time limit trap
The unfair dismissal claim failed because of a straightforward timing issue. The claimant's employment ended on 29 October 2022, but he didn't start ACAS conciliation until 3 February 2023 – over three months later. The claim was presented on 17 March, well outside the three-month window. The tribunal had no discretion to extend the time because the delay was not caused by any exceptional circumstances.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, the key lesson is to act quickly if you think you've been unfairly dismissed. The three-month clock starts ticking from your last day of employment, and ACAS conciliation must be started before that deadline.
For employers, this case is a reminder that garden leave is a contractual right – not something you can invent mid-notice. Deducting pay for breaching unenforceable terms will almost certainly be an unlawful deduction, and you may end up paying the sum plus any compensation for the breach.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal but 100% Polkey reduction due to workplace closure
A former employee was unfairly dismissed but received only limited compensation because the tribunal found he would have been fairly dismissed a month later when the workplace closed. Total award: £12,419.29.
Unfair dismissal and breach of contract: employer who failed to respond hit with default judgment
A former employee has won £4,467.57 after their employer failed to respond to an unfair dismissal and breach of contract claim, leading to a default judgment.
Cleaning operative's unfair dismissal claims dismissed as out of time
A cleaning operative who filed two unfair dismissal claims after the three-month deadline has had both claims dismissed. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to have filed in time.
Kitchen manager dismissed without consultation in redundancy: unfair dismissal
A kitchen manager with two years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer made her redundant without any consultation or warning. The tribunal awarded £4,809.49 in compensation.