Case 1401136/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Bow v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401136/2023
- Decision date
- 5 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Appearances
- Venue
- by CVP from the Bristol Tribunal
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss A Bow
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, formerly the sole director and an employee of Rug Rescue Ltd (in creditors' voluntary liquidation), brought claims against the Secretary of State under Parts 9 and 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in respect of redundancy pay, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of pay following the company's insolvency. The Redundancy Payments Service had paid her £4,715.80 on 20 September 2023 calculated on a weekly wage of £119.23, derived from her declared P60 income of £6,200 for the tax year to 5 April 2022. The claimant contended that her weekly pay should instead have been £380, based on a 40-hour week at the National Minimum Wage of £9.50 per hour.
The tribunal found that, given the limited documentation available, R1 had used the correct calculation of a week's pay by dividing the declared P60 figure by 52, which was broadly consistent with the two preceding tax years (£8,628 to 5 April 2020 and £4,107.47 to 5 April 2021). Taking into account the claimant's evidence, including a document signed by her late father in May 2020 referring to reduced wages being repaid in future, the judge was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that additional hours at the NMW rate had in fact been worked or were owed: the claimant was the sole director and decision maker (and latterly sole shareholder), any sums owed were not recorded as a debt in the company's accounts, and the contemporaneous time sheets and spreadsheet she said she had kept were not produced.
The claimant withdrew the arrears of pay complaint at the hearing, having accepted she had been paid the correct amount. All four complaints were therefore dismissed as not well founded. No remedy was awarded by the tribunal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim against the Secretary of State under Pt 9 ERA 1996 for an underpayment of redundancy pay; the tribunal held that R1 had used the correct weekly pay figure of £119.23 (based on the P60 for the year to 5 April 2022) and the complaint was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim under Pt 12 ERA 1996 for an underpayment of holiday pay; dismissed as not well founded on the same weekly pay finding. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim in respect of arrears of pay; the claimant accepted at the hearing that she had been paid the correct amount and the complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim under Pt 12 ERA 1996 for an underpayment of notice pay; dismissed as not well founded on the same weekly pay finding (£119.23 rather than £380). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Section 166/170 Part 9 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 182/188 Part 12 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 185 ERA 1996
- Section 186 ERA 1996
- Section 188 ERA 1996
- Section 221 ERA 1996
- Section 223 ERA 1996
- Section 18(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Rule 42 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.