Case 1404980/2023 · Employment Tribunal
1) Mrs B Matlock 2) Mr C Matlock v Silver Print Limited– In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404980/2023
- Decision date
- 8 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
3 namedClaimant
1) Mrs B Matlock 2) Mr C Matlock
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Southampton on 23 February 2024, before Employment Judge Dawson, the claimants represented themselves and the respondent was represented by a lay representative. The tribunal recorded that Mrs B Matlock and Mr C Matlock were, at all material times, employees of the first respondent.
The tribunal also held that the second respondent, the Secretary of State for the Department for Business & Trade, ought to make payment under sections 166 and 182 Employment Rights Act 1996. That was the substantive liability finding recorded in the judgment.
No remedy figure was decided in this judgment. The tribunal stated that any further issues of liability or remedy would be determined at a further hearing and adjourned the case generally. It also recorded that the claims would be dismissed upon deemed withdrawal on 23 May 2024 unless a party applied before that date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimants were, at all material times, employees of the first respondent and that the second respondent ought to make payment under sections 166 and 182 Employment Rights Act 1996. Any further issues of liability or remedy were adjourned to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 166 and 182 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.