Court orders retailer to pay £19,000 over unfair dismissal

A MEN’S fashion retailer has been ordered to pay a former employee nearly £19,000 by the Royal Court after failing to satisfy an order by the Employment Tribunal to compensate the man for unfair dismissal.


A MEN’S fashion retailer has been ordered to pay a former employee nearly £19,000 by the Royal Court after failing to satisfy an order by the Employment Tribunal to compensate the man for unfair dismissal.

Judgment with permission to sell has been granted against United Fashions Ltd, which trades as Beau Monde.

Former employee G Carratu took the company to court after it failed to meet awards granted by the tribunal in June last year.

He has now been granted judgment with permission to sell against the company as well as costs.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Comments for: "Court orders retailer to pay £19,000 over unfair dismissal"

Well done JET

The laws are only part of the issue. They are necessary to discourage bad practice by employers who are ignorant or arrogant of the best practice and responsibility of being an employer.Most of the problem is caused by poor inconsistent decisions made by the JET.

James Wiley

If only that were true Mallouin, but the government (which does not enjoy anything like majority support and certainly does not have the consent of the people) cares about no one but itself.

Do not confuse government with society. They are distinct organisms and the relationship is parasitic not symbiotic.


He did right to sue. Employers need to be put in their place and also learn not to treat their staff so badly. Many bosses I know treat their staff like muck and just sack them if they dare answer back. It is not right. Just because you are the boss does not give you the right to treat people like dirt. I hope more will take route. This case has set a good informative precedent!


Maybe I've read the report incorrectly but this seems to be a rather straightforward case, originating simply with the non-payment of wages. The proprietor is also reported to have asked the emplyee to pay for stock off his (the employee's) credit card, which he apparently did but the proprietor delayed refunding him. And then he (the proprietor)ignored the ruling of the Tribunal.

James Wiley

Well I have read the JET judgement on the Jersey Law website.

It is clear that the business grew during the boom time and wages grew too but things changed. The director had to make changes to save the business.

The business contracted from three shops to one but the wage bill was still simply unsustainable.

The employee was told he could not afford him any more and was advised to look for another job. He was still employed until he found alternate employment.

There was £4,500 awarded for back pay, back commissions less a bit of holiday pay for which he had been overpaid. This bit is fine and quite right.

But after resigning the employee then bought a case of constructive dismissal against the company (even though he was never dismissed, but in his own words decided to take up alternate employment because he could see that the future would be difficult where he was).

JET awarded him £16,900 for the alleged constructive dismissal... thus jeopardising all the other employees jobs and the future of the company itself.

What loss did this employee actually incur to warrant the £17k? None because he was never unemployed.

So why is he being awarded compensation?


James, you may have read the JET judgement, but clearly you have failed to understand it.

You seem to have omitted several pertitent facts from your precie above and have been selective with the ones you used.

It's a shame the recession has caused difficulties for the owner but that does not absolve from his reponsibilities as an employer.


The fact remains that a tribunal found sufficient evidence to support a case of constructive dismal, and there is no point in asking lay people why the tribunal reached that decision. It is all in the judgement.

The contempt shown by the employer for the tribunal's judgement does tend to raise valid questions about their conduct in the first instance

the thin wallet

there are two sides to this coin.

some employees are good workers and are poorly treated by bosses.

so there needs to be a saftey net .

but i do agree with you some staff are lazy , could not careless about the company they work for , and are all of the poor qualities you mention above .

and it appears theres little that can be done with them.

this could be why some small firms are reluctant to employ staff.

Mark G

As a small business owner you have legal responsability to your employeess and this includes paying them. If you can not run a solvent business then you should close the businss. There is no morals when it comes to business so why shoud employees have morals for the business owner?

As an employer you have to follow the law and the contract you issue to the employee.

This link is a public record of the tribunal and makes it clear that the employer breached the contract of employment:\2012-06-19-Carratu-110-2011.htm&JudgementNo=110/2011

the thin wallet

put the mans name into a search along with jersey employment tribunal, you can read the case .

there is quite a lot of other cases elsewhere , a good read .

St Ouen

The owner was unable to keep to his responsibilities and wages were paid late. However this had been the case for a number of years and it was a practice that the employee had accepted. There was no 'final straw' in this case. Simply the employee saw, thanks to his lawyer, an opportunity opened by a poor system.

James Wiley

I do not see anything wrong with employers simply being able to give notice, without having to state a reason.

These are not contracts for life.

The tribunal may have acted within the law; but that does not mean that the law is right or fair.

Equally my conclusions would have been possible within the law.

That the tribunal consistently interprets the law to favour employees is probably why employers won't work with them.