- IN PERSON (C 1/2/3) NO ATTENDANCE (C4/5) FOR THE v TTR PT Ltd (In Administration) and The Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Industrial Strategy — 2024

The tribunal found that all five claimants were employed at the respondent's Waterloo Road, Poole premises and that, after the respondent entered administration on 14 November 2022, they were told on 15 November that there would be no consultation and that they would be dismissed, with immediate dismissals taking effect on 18 November 2022. It accepted that the respondent proposed to dismiss more than 20 employees as redundant within 90 days at the same establishment, that there was no trade union recognition, no employee representatives and no consultation, and that no special circumstances were shown. The complaints under section 188 of TULRCA 1992 were therefore well founded and a 90-day protective award was made from 18 November 2022.

For Ms L Farnham, the tribunal upheld wrongful dismissal claims for contractual notice pay of £53,000 gross and pension loss of £880.56 for the six-month notice period. It also upheld her unfair dismissal claim and made a compensatory award of £500 for loss of statutory rights, finding no basic award was due because statutory redundancy pay had already been received from the Redundancy Payments Service, no further earnings loss was claimed beyond 1 March 2023 and no ACAS uplift applied. For Mr K Lyons, the tribunal upheld wrongful dismissal notice pay of £595.76 and unfair dismissal compensation of £7,464.51, made up of £6,964.51 loss of earnings and £500 loss of statutory rights, with no basic award or ACAS uplift.

For Mr G Slade, the tribunal upheld unfair dismissal and awarded £13,249.21 gross as compensation, comprising £11,119 loss of earnings, £330.21 pension loss, £1,200 car allowance, £100 job-seeking expenses and £500 loss of statutory rights. The tribunal recorded that the basic award had already been met by the Redundancy Payments Service and no ACAS uplift was available. Ms L Farnham's and Mr G Slade's holiday pay claims were dismissed because the claimed holiday would have duplicated pay already awarded or had already been paid by the Redundancy Payments Service. Ms K Tyler and Ms B Roxburgh did not attend or provide a schedule of loss, and no further awards were made to them.