Case 1301911/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person/with her sister For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1301911/2019
- Decision date
- 26 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person/with her sister For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing by telephone on 22 May 2020, Employment Judge Lloyd struck out the claim in its entirety under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably. The judge said the claimant was conflating her entitlement to statutory payments from the National Insurance Fund under ss.166 and 184 ERA 1996 with enforcement of the Manchester Employment Tribunal judgment of 5 September 2016, sent to the parties on 24 October 2016, which had involved discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal against Darcy Lou Limited in liquidation and had produced a total award of £56,974.08.
The reasons dealt with the particular heads the claimant was pursuing. The tribunal recorded that payments had already been made from the National Insurance Fund for arrears of wages and holiday pay, including arrears of £1,123.16 plus £151.44 overtime, total £1,274.60 gross, paid as £963.94 net, and holiday pay of £244.75 gross, with a further £48.66 supplement processed after the tribunal award of £293.41. The Secretary of State accepted that further holiday payment was due and that the claimant could make a claim for compensatory notice pay online, but the judge did not accept the claimant's evidence that the link did not work and found that she had not attempted to use it.
The tribunal also recorded that the redundancy payment claim failed because the claimant had not worked for two complete years. On unfair dismissal, the judge said that under s.184(d) ERA 1996 only the basic award could be considered for payment from the National Insurance Fund, and the claimant was not entitled to a basic award. On pension contributions, the judge said payment could only be considered where the relevant pension authority submitted a claim, which had not happened. The Secretary of State had no authority to consider compensation for future losses, expenses, costs, discrimination compensation or any uplift, and after giving the claimant and her sister ample opportunity to respond, the tribunal struck out the claim in full.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for statutory redundancy payment. The reasons noted that the rejection letter of 4 December 2018 said the claimant had not worked for two complete years; the tribunal struck the claim out in its entirety under rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim for compensatory notice pay from the National Insurance Fund. The Secretary of State said the claimant could claim online after an error in the insolvency statement; the judge did not accept her evidence that the link failed and said she had not attempted the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for arrears of wages and overtime. The reasons recorded arrears of £1,123.16 plus £151.44, total £1,274.60 gross, with £963.94 net paid to the claimant. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay. The reasons noted a previous payment of £244.75 gross, a tribunal award of £293.41, and a supplementary payment of £48.66 that was processed for the claimant. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim for unfair dismissal compensation. The judge said only the basic award element could be considered from the National Insurance Fund under s.184(d) ERA 1996, and the claimant was not entitled to a basic award. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim for employer pension contributions. The judge held that payment could only be considered if the relevant pension authority submitted a claim to the National Insurance Fund, and no such claim existed. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 37(1)(b) unreasonable conduct
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.