Antuzis & Ors v DJ Houghton Catching Services Ltd & Ors

Damages for unlawful underpayment may be assessed on the balance of probabilities even where the employer’s failure to keep records creates substantial uncertainty. The court should use the available evidence, including reliable estimates and cross-checking, without applying an arbitrary discount in the employer’s favour where the uncertainty results from the employer’s own breaches.

Workers are entitled to payment for qualifying travel, waiting and on-call time, not merely time spent performing the immediate task. Contractual damages may be increased by aggravated damages where the cumulative effect of systematic exploitation and denial of statutory wage rights is not fully compensated by repayment alone. Exemplary damages remain discretionary and may be unnecessary where substantial aggravated damages are awarded.

The claimants, Lithuanian chicken catchers, brought claims arising from systematic underpayment, unlawful deductions, withheld wages and unpaid holiday pay while working for the first defendant company. The second and third defendants had already been found jointly and severally liable for inducing the company’s contractual and related statutory breaches in the liability judgment of Lane J, [2019] EWHC 843 (QB).

This trial concerned the assessment of quantum against the first, second and third defendants. The principal issues were the hours for which the claimants were entitled to payment, deductions for accommodation and employment fees, arbitrary withholding of wages, and aggravated and exemplary damages.

1. Quantum. The claimants’ methodology had been agreed or could no longer be challenged. The remaining dispute concerned the factual inputs, particularly hours worked. The court accepted the claimants’ evidence, supported by payslips, chicken-catching records, driving records and other documents. The evidence established the claimants’ entitlement to payment for catching, travel, waiting and on-call time.
2. The absence of precise records did not justify an arbitrary discount. The uncertainty was substantially caused by the defendants’ failure to keep legally required records and to calculate pay lawfully. Once the amounts were proved on the balance of probabilities, they were recoverable in full.
3. Deductions. The claimants were not entitled to repayment of all rent merely because the accommodation was overcrowded or infested. However, the deductions exceeded the statutory accommodation limit. The men shared the whole houses rather than renting exclusive rooms, so the permissible deduction was £1.50 per week. The excess was recoverable. Employment fees and arbitrary non-payments were also unlawful deductions and were recoverable.
4. Aggravated damages. The claimants’ claims against the individual defendants were tort claims for inducing breach of contract. Repayment of unpaid wages, even with interest, did not compensate for the cumulative effect of exploitation, manipulation, threats and systematic denial of statutory rights. Aggravated damages were therefore awarded at 20% of the basic money claims.
5. Exemplary damages. These are punitive rather than compensatory. They were not awarded because the substantial aggravated damages were sufficient and there was inadequate evidence of the defendants’ profits or of the proper sum to be extracted from them.

Judgment was entered for the claimants for the assessed unpaid wages, unlawful deductions, agreed holiday pay and interest, together with the 20% aggravated-damages uplift.

1. High Court (Queen's Bench Division): Lane J determined liability in [2019] EWHC 843 (QB), finding the company liable for contractual and related statutory breaches and the second and third defendants jointly and severally liable for inducing them.
2. High Court (Queen's Bench Division): The present judgment assessed quantum and awarded the claimants damages, including aggravated damages.