September 18, 2026
This case concerned claims arising from an employer's failure to comply with statutory obligations to provide written terms of employment and written reasons for dismissal under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The claimant commenced proceedings on 26 January 2026 following the termination of her employment with the respondent cleaning company.
The claimant had been employed by the respondent from approximately July 2025 until 23 January 2026 and earned £600 per week for a five-day working week. The respondent accepted that a written contract of employment had been prepared at the outset of the employment and produced a copy signed by its director and dated 1 July 2025. However, the claimant maintained that she had never been informed that a contract was available, had never been asked to sign one and had not been provided with a copy during her employment. The respondent's evidence was that the contract had been retained in an office drawer and could have been collected by the claimant if she had requested it. The Tribunal found that the claimant did not have access to the location where the contract was stored and would have had to ask management for a copy.
The claimant's employment came to an end after she was informed verbally on 17 January 2026 that she was being dismissed with one week's notice because of a reduction in demand for the respondent's services. Although the reason for dismissal was communicated verbally, no written confirmation was subsequently provided. The claimant accepted that she did not request written reasons for her dismissal.
In relation to the written terms claim, the Tribunal considered Article 3 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003, which requires an employer to provide an employee with written terms of employment within four weeks of the commencement of employment. Referring to its published guidance, the Tribunal noted that written terms may be provided by hand, email, post or by being left in a place accessible to the employee, provided the employee is informed where they can be found. The Tribunal concluded that merely preparing the contract and retaining it in an office drawer did not satisfy the statutory obligation. Because the claimant had not been given access to the document and had not been informed of any accessible means of obtaining it, the respondent had failed to provide written terms of employment and was therefore in breach of Article 3.
The Tribunal then considered the appropriate level of compensation. In doing so, it applied the factors set out in its guidance, including the reason for the breach, the duration of the period during which the employee was without written terms, whether the employee had requested a written statement, the size and resources of the employer, the adequacy of the employer's systems for ensuring compliance and the impact of the breach on the employee. The Tribunal noted that the claimant had been employed for approximately seven months without written terms, that there was a dispute as to whether she had requested a copy of the contract and that she alleged no specific detriment arising from the absence of written terms. It also took account of the respondent's relatively limited human resources capability, the fact that a written contract had in fact been prepared, and the respondent's assurance that more robust procedures would be implemented in future. Balancing those considerations, the Tribunal awarded compensation equivalent to one week's pay, namely £600.
The Tribunal also considered the respondent's failure to provide written reasons for dismissal as required by Article 63A of the Law. It held that the respondent was plainly in breach of that provision because no written reasons were supplied within the statutory period following termination. As the provisions concerning written reasons for dismissal had only recently come into force, the Tribunal observed that there was little existing guidance on the assessment of compensation. The Deputy Chair therefore identified a number of potentially relevant factors, including the extent of any prejudice suffered by the employee, whether the employee already knew the reasons for dismissal, whether written reasons were subsequently provided, whether the employee had requested them, the reasons for the employer's non-compliance, the employer's size and administrative resources and the existence of procedures designed to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Applying those principles, the Tribunal declined to award compensation for the Article 63A breach. It considered significant that the claimant had been told the reason for her dismissal verbally at the time notice was given, that she had not requested written reasons and that she had produced no evidence showing any practical disadvantage resulting from the omission. The Tribunal also accepted that the respondent was a relatively small employer with limited administrative support and that it had acknowledged its failure and undertaken to comply with the statutory requirement in future. In those circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that a compensatory award was not justified notwithstanding the existence of the breach.
The Tribunal therefore ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £600 for failure to provide written terms of employment and made no award in respect of the failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. The decision is significant in confirming that an employer must take positive steps to provide written terms to an employee rather than simply preparing them, and in offering early guidance on the factors that may be relevant when assessing compensation for breaches of the relatively new statutory obligation to provide written reasons for dismissal
This case concerned claims arising from an employer's failure to comply with statutory obligations to provide written terms of employment and written reasons for dismissal under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The claimant commenced proceedings on 26 January 2026 following the termination of her employment with the respondent cleaning company.
The claimant had been employed by the respondent from approximately July 2025 until 23 January 2026 and earned £600 per week for a five-day working week. The respondent accepted that a written contract of employment had been prepared at the outset of the employment and produced a copy signed by its director and dated 1 July 2025. However, the claimant maintained that she had never been informed that a contract was available, had never been asked to sign one and had not been provided with a copy during her employment. The respondent's evidence was that the contract had been retained in an office drawer and could have been collected by the claimant if she had requested it. The Tribunal found that the claimant did not have access to the location where the contract was stored and would have had to ask management for a copy.
The claimant's employment came to an end after she was informed verbally on 17 January 2026 that she was being dismissed with one week's notice because of a reduction in demand for the respondent's services. Although the reason for dismissal was communicated verbally, no written confirmation was subsequently provided. The claimant accepted that she did not request written reasons for her dismissal.
In relation to the written terms claim, the Tribunal considered Article 3 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003, which requires an employer to provide an employee with written terms of employment within four weeks of the commencement of employment. Referring to its published guidance, the Tribunal noted that written terms may be provided by hand, email, post or by being left in a place accessible to the employee, provided the employee is informed where they can be found. The Tribunal concluded that merely preparing the contract and retaining it in an office drawer did not satisfy the statutory obligation. Because the claimant had not been given access to the document and had not been informed of any accessible means of obtaining it, the respondent had failed to provide written terms of employment and was therefore in breach of Article 3.
The Tribunal then considered the appropriate level of compensation. In doing so, it applied the factors set out in its guidance, including the reason for the breach, the duration of the period during which the employee was without written terms, whether the employee had requested a written statement, the size and resources of the employer, the adequacy of the employer's systems for ensuring compliance and the impact of the breach on the employee. The Tribunal noted that the claimant had been employed for approximately seven months without written terms, that there was a dispute as to whether she had requested a copy of the contract and that she alleged no specific detriment arising from the absence of written terms. It also took account of the respondent's relatively limited human resources capability, the fact that a written contract had in fact been prepared, and the respondent's assurance that more robust procedures would be implemented in future. Balancing those considerations, the Tribunal awarded compensation equivalent to one week's pay, namely £600.
The Tribunal also considered the respondent's failure to provide written reasons for dismissal as required by Article 63A of the Law. It held that the respondent was plainly in breach of that provision because no written reasons were supplied within the statutory period following termination. As the provisions concerning written reasons for dismissal had only recently come into force, the Tribunal observed that there was little existing guidance on the assessment of compensation. The Deputy Chair therefore identified a number of potentially relevant factors, including the extent of any prejudice suffered by the employee, whether the employee already knew the reasons for dismissal, whether written reasons were subsequently provided, whether the employee had requested them, the reasons for the employer's non-compliance, the employer's size and administrative resources and the existence of procedures designed to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Applying those principles, the Tribunal declined to award compensation for the Article 63A breach. It considered significant that the claimant had been told the reason for her dismissal verbally at the time notice was given, that she had not requested written reasons and that she had produced no evidence showing any practical disadvantage resulting from the omission. The Tribunal also accepted that the respondent was a relatively small employer with limited administrative support and that it had acknowledged its failure and undertaken to comply with the statutory requirement in future. In those circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that a compensatory award was not justified notwithstanding the existence of the breach.
The Tribunal therefore ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £600 for failure to provide written terms of employment and made no award in respect of the failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. The decision is significant in confirming that an employer must take positive steps to provide written terms to an employee rather than simply preparing them, and in offering early guidance on the factors that may be relevant when assessing compensation for breaches of the relatively new statutory obligation to provide written reasons for dismissal
This case concerned claims arising from an employer's failure to comply with statutory obligations to provide written terms of employment and written reasons for dismissal under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The claimant commenced proceedings on 26 January 2026 following the termination of her employment with the respondent cleaning company.
The claimant had been employed by the respondent from approximately July 2025 until 23 January 2026 and earned £600 per week for a five-day working week. The respondent accepted that a written contract of employment had been prepared at the outset of the employment and produced a copy signed by its director and dated 1 July 2025. However, the claimant maintained that she had never been informed that a contract was available, had never been asked to sign one and had not been provided with a copy during her employment. The respondent's evidence was that the contract had been retained in an office drawer and could have been collected by the claimant if she had requested it. The Tribunal found that the claimant did not have access to the location where the contract was stored and would have had to ask management for a copy.
The claimant's employment came to an end after she was informed verbally on 17 January 2026 that she was being dismissed with one week's notice because of a reduction in demand for the respondent's services. Although the reason for dismissal was communicated verbally, no written confirmation was subsequently provided. The claimant accepted that she did not request written reasons for her dismissal.
In relation to the written terms claim, the Tribunal considered Article 3 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003, which requires an employer to provide an employee with written terms of employment within four weeks of the commencement of employment. Referring to its published guidance, the Tribunal noted that written terms may be provided by hand, email, post or by being left in a place accessible to the employee, provided the employee is informed where they can be found. The Tribunal concluded that merely preparing the contract and retaining it in an office drawer did not satisfy the statutory obligation. Because the claimant had not been given access to the document and had not been informed of any accessible means of obtaining it, the respondent had failed to provide written terms of employment and was therefore in breach of Article 3.
The Tribunal then considered the appropriate level of compensation. In doing so, it applied the factors set out in its guidance, including the reason for the breach, the duration of the period during which the employee was without written terms, whether the employee had requested a written statement, the size and resources of the employer, the adequacy of the employer's systems for ensuring compliance and the impact of the breach on the employee. The Tribunal noted that the claimant had been employed for approximately seven months without written terms, that there was a dispute as to whether she had requested a copy of the contract and that she alleged no specific detriment arising from the absence of written terms. It also took account of the respondent's relatively limited human resources capability, the fact that a written contract had in fact been prepared, and the respondent's assurance that more robust procedures would be implemented in future. Balancing those considerations, the Tribunal awarded compensation equivalent to one week's pay, namely £600.
The Tribunal also considered the respondent's failure to provide written reasons for dismissal as required by Article 63A of the Law. It held that the respondent was plainly in breach of that provision because no written reasons were supplied within the statutory period following termination. As the provisions concerning written reasons for dismissal had only recently come into force, the Tribunal observed that there was little existing guidance on the assessment of compensation. The Deputy Chair therefore identified a number of potentially relevant factors, including the extent of any prejudice suffered by the employee, whether the employee already knew the reasons for dismissal, whether written reasons were subsequently provided, whether the employee had requested them, the reasons for the employer's non-compliance, the employer's size and administrative resources and the existence of procedures designed to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Applying those principles, the Tribunal declined to award compensation for the Article 63A breach. It considered significant that the claimant had been told the reason for her dismissal verbally at the time notice was given, that she had not requested written reasons and that she had produced no evidence showing any practical disadvantage resulting from the omission. The Tribunal also accepted that the respondent was a relatively small employer with limited administrative support and that it had acknowledged its failure and undertaken to comply with the statutory requirement in future. In those circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that a compensatory award was not justified notwithstanding the existence of the breach.
The Tribunal therefore ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £600 for failure to provide written terms of employment and made no award in respect of the failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. The decision is significant in confirming that an employer must take positive steps to provide written terms to an employee rather than simply preparing them, and in offering early guidance on the factors that may be relevant when assessing compensation for breaches of the relatively new statutory obligation to provide written reasons for dismissal
This case concerned claims arising from an employer's failure to comply with statutory obligations to provide written terms of employment and written reasons for dismissal under the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003. The claimant commenced proceedings on 26 January 2026 following the termination of her employment with the respondent cleaning company.
The claimant had been employed by the respondent from approximately July 2025 until 23 January 2026 and earned £600 per week for a five-day working week. The respondent accepted that a written contract of employment had been prepared at the outset of the employment and produced a copy signed by its director and dated 1 July 2025. However, the claimant maintained that she had never been informed that a contract was available, had never been asked to sign one and had not been provided with a copy during her employment. The respondent's evidence was that the contract had been retained in an office drawer and could have been collected by the claimant if she had requested it. The Tribunal found that the claimant did not have access to the location where the contract was stored and would have had to ask management for a copy.
The claimant's employment came to an end after she was informed verbally on 17 January 2026 that she was being dismissed with one week's notice because of a reduction in demand for the respondent's services. Although the reason for dismissal was communicated verbally, no written confirmation was subsequently provided. The claimant accepted that she did not request written reasons for her dismissal.
In relation to the written terms claim, the Tribunal considered Article 3 of the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003, which requires an employer to provide an employee with written terms of employment within four weeks of the commencement of employment. Referring to its published guidance, the Tribunal noted that written terms may be provided by hand, email, post or by being left in a place accessible to the employee, provided the employee is informed where they can be found. The Tribunal concluded that merely preparing the contract and retaining it in an office drawer did not satisfy the statutory obligation. Because the claimant had not been given access to the document and had not been informed of any accessible means of obtaining it, the respondent had failed to provide written terms of employment and was therefore in breach of Article 3.
The Tribunal then considered the appropriate level of compensation. In doing so, it applied the factors set out in its guidance, including the reason for the breach, the duration of the period during which the employee was without written terms, whether the employee had requested a written statement, the size and resources of the employer, the adequacy of the employer's systems for ensuring compliance and the impact of the breach on the employee. The Tribunal noted that the claimant had been employed for approximately seven months without written terms, that there was a dispute as to whether she had requested a copy of the contract and that she alleged no specific detriment arising from the absence of written terms. It also took account of the respondent's relatively limited human resources capability, the fact that a written contract had in fact been prepared, and the respondent's assurance that more robust procedures would be implemented in future. Balancing those considerations, the Tribunal awarded compensation equivalent to one week's pay, namely £600.
The Tribunal also considered the respondent's failure to provide written reasons for dismissal as required by Article 63A of the Law. It held that the respondent was plainly in breach of that provision because no written reasons were supplied within the statutory period following termination. As the provisions concerning written reasons for dismissal had only recently come into force, the Tribunal observed that there was little existing guidance on the assessment of compensation. The Deputy Chair therefore identified a number of potentially relevant factors, including the extent of any prejudice suffered by the employee, whether the employee already knew the reasons for dismissal, whether written reasons were subsequently provided, whether the employee had requested them, the reasons for the employer's non-compliance, the employer's size and administrative resources and the existence of procedures designed to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Applying those principles, the Tribunal declined to award compensation for the Article 63A breach. It considered significant that the claimant had been told the reason for her dismissal verbally at the time notice was given, that she had not requested written reasons and that she had produced no evidence showing any practical disadvantage resulting from the omission. The Tribunal also accepted that the respondent was a relatively small employer with limited administrative support and that it had acknowledged its failure and undertaken to comply with the statutory requirement in future. In those circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that a compensatory award was not justified notwithstanding the existence of the breach.
The Tribunal therefore ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £600 for failure to provide written terms of employment and made no award in respect of the failure to provide written reasons for dismissal. The decision is significant in confirming that an employer must take positive steps to provide written terms to an employee rather than simply preparing them, and in offering early guidance on the factors that may be relevant when assessing compensation for breaches of the relatively new statutory obligation to provide written reasons for dismissal