In the case of Mr B Handford v Ms Y Shkop Brian Handford tore his scapholunate ligament after he was asked to prepare and cook lobster for his employer, Yulia Shkop. Having never done it before, the self-described “Manny” or male nanny watched YouTube tutorials on techniques to cook lobster.
He was soon sacked from his role after an argument ensued when he requested that Shkop pay for the surgery and subsequent rehabilitation after the accident.
Handford tutored Shkop’s eight-year-old-son at their £5 million home on the Wentworth Estate in Surrey for £36,000 a year – a role he said he had “a lot of fun” doing.
Alongside his role, which started in September 2020, Handford enjoyed free tennis lessons and access to the mansion’s pool. Five months after moving in, Handford was asked to prepare two live lobsters after the house chef had finished for the day. He was told to freeze and cut the lobsters before boiling them so they wouldn’t make a noise and upset Shkop’s child.
When pressing down hard on a knife to prepare the lobster, Handford sustained the wrist injury that required an operation, six months of immobilisation and an additional six months of physiotherapy.
Watford tribunal heard that Shkop refused to take “any personal responsibility” for the incident, resulting in an argument and the breakdown of their working relationship. Handford was told to leave the premises two days later.
The tribunal accepted Handford’s version of events, despite Shkop’s claim he hurt his wrist while swimming. However, his claim of unfair dismissal failed because Shkop had a “loss of faith and trust” in Handford and felt that he “ignored in her view the generosity she had always offered”.
The tribunal also dismissed Hanford’s claim for an unlawful deduction of wages. It ruled in favour of his claim that Shkop was in breach of the requirement to provide an amended written statement, in relation to being unable to work due to sickness but concluded that Handford was not in line for compensation.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
