Seaton v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2011] UKUT 297 (TCC), [2011] All ER (D) 87 (Oct)
Where an employer failed to pay an employee wages to which the employee was entitled, the fact that an employee received no income was not a circumstance which fell within the exception provided by Sch 11, para 2(c) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The Parliamentary intention was shown by the words “normal weekly earnings” in Sch 11, para 2(c) which, on their ordinary meaning had to mean the actual entitlement under the contract of service.
There was no need to seek to adopt a purposive construction of the special definition in s 163(2) that produced a different result by, for example, deeming something less than the lower earnings limit to have been paid when in fact nothing had been paid.
