Case 1403218/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Rice v Mr Christopher Adamson and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1403218/2022
- Decision date
- 7 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss R Rice
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal lifted any previous stay and declared that Miss Rice was an employee of the First Respondent from 7 June 2022 until 5 July 2022, when she was dismissed without notice.
The tribunal declared that, before the First Respondent's bankruptcy on 28 October 2022, he was liable to pay Miss Rice £590 in unpaid pay including overtime, £230 for accrued untaken holiday, £500 in lieu of contractual notice, and £1,000 compensation under section 38 Employment Rights Act 1996 for failure to provide a proper statement of employment particulars.
The tribunal ordered the Second Respondent to pay such of those sums as it is required by law to pay from the National Insurance Fund following the First Respondent's bankruptcy. All other claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for unpaid pay for one week, including overtime. | Upheld | — | £590 |
| Holiday pay | Award in lieu of 2.3 days accrued holiday untaken at dismissal. | Upheld | — | £230 |
| Breach of contract | Award for one week's pay in lieu of notice, described as an entitlement under the written contract. | Upheld | — | £500 |
| Other | Compensation under section 38 Employment Rights Act 1996 for failure to provide a proper statement of employment particulars. | Upheld | — | £1,000 |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | The judgment states that all other claims are dismissed; the listing identified Fixed Term Regulations, but the written judgment gives no further detail. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,320
- across all upheld claims
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.