Case 1401377/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Stott First v Second Respondent: Third Respondent: Ukrainian Social Club Dnipro Ms L Edgworth Mr J Pilipczuk — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401377/2024
- Decision date
- 6 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yallop REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Stott First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Ms N Stott, was employed as bar staff at the Ukrainian Social Club Dnipro (the First Respondent) from 22 July 2001 until her dismissal on 28 August 2023 by reason of redundancy, the Club being unable to continue operating. Her complaints for notice pay, holiday pay and a statutory redundancy payment were presented out of time, but the Tribunal found it had not been reasonably practicable for her to present the notice pay and holiday pay complaints in time (as she had been told to claim from the Insolvency Service and reasonably believed she could not claim from the Club), and that the complaints were presented within a further reasonable period. In respect of the redundancy payment, the Tribunal found it just and equitable for the claim to proceed within the further six-month period.
The Tribunal held that the First Respondent is an unincorporated association with no legal identity and therefore dismissed all complaints against it; the Second and Third Respondents, as members including Committee Members, were held jointly and severally liable for the First Respondent's debts and obligations. The Claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' notice but received only 6 days, so damages for breach of contract of £4,312 (calculated on gross pay to reflect Post Employment Notice Pay tax treatment) were awarded. The holiday pay claim, framed under s.13 ERA 1996, succeeded in respect of 77 hours of accrued but untaken holiday, producing an award of £801.57.
The parties agreed the Claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy. Applying s.162 ERA 1996, the Tribunal awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £10,780, calculated as 4 years' service under age 41 at £1,540 plus 16 years aged 41 or over at £9,240, payable by the Second and Third Respondents jointly and severally.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay: Claimant entitled to 12 weeks' notice but received only 6 days; damages awarded for remaining 11 weeks and 1 day (56 working days) at gross daily rate of £77. Payable by Second and Third Respondents jointly and severally. | Upheld | — | £4,312 |
| Holiday pay | Unauthorised deduction from wages for 77 hours of accrued but untaken holiday at £10.41 per hour. Payable by Second and Third Respondents jointly and severally. | Upheld | — | £802 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment under s.163 ERA 1996, calculated under s.162 ERA based on 20 years' service. Payable by Second and Third Respondents jointly and severally. | Upheld | — | £10,780 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The holiday pay claim was framed by the tribunal as an unauthorised deduction from wages under s.13 ERA 1996; the £801.57 award is recorded against the holiday_pay claim and not duplicated here. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | All complaints against the First Respondent (Ukrainian Social Club Dnipro) were dismissed on the basis that it is an unincorporated association with no legal identity; liability passed to the Second and Third Respondents as jointly and severally liable members/committee members. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,894
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.162 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Borough Council [1984] IRLR 119 (CA)
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.