Case 1601209/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ashgrove (Swansea) Ltd and R Hunt — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601209/2022
- Decision date
- 15 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brady Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was at Cardiff ET by CVP on 12 May 2023 before Employment Judge Brady. The claimants were Ionela Mariana Farcas, Erico Costantini, Yasmin Bevan and Victoria Owens against Ashgrove (Swansea) Ltd. Claimant 2 did not attend because he was unwell, and his claim was adjourned for further information. The respondent did not attend.
For claimants 1, 3 and 4, the tribunal found that they were entitled to statutory redundancy payments and that the respondent had breached the employment contract by failing to pay notice pay and holiday pay, and by failing to reimburse claimant 1's travelling expenses. The awards recorded were £5,424.50 for claimant 1, £821.75 for claimant 3 and £7,308 for claimant 4 on redundancy; £8,656, £303.85 and £1,278 for claimant 1; £1,150.45 and £266 for claimant 3; and £3,990 and £332.50 for claimant 4 on the contract claim.
The tribunal dismissed claimants 1, 3 and 4's claim for unauthorised deductions when they were laid off, because the contract contained a term permitting 'laying off'. It separately found that the respondent had deducted claimant 1's layoff payment from her wages without authorisation in breach of s.13(1) ERA 1996 and ordered repayment of £150 gross. The written record states total awards of £15,811.50 for claimant 1, £2,238.20 for claimant 3 and £11,630.50 for claimant 4, giving a total of £29,680.20; the itemised figures in paragraph 6 appear to be £0.85 higher than the printed total for claimant 1.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claimants 1, 3 and 4 were found entitled to statutory redundancy payments of £5,424.50, £821.75 and £7,308 respectively. | Upheld | — | £13,554 |
| Breach of contract | The respondent breached the employment contract in respect of claimants 1, 3 and 4. The judgment ordered notice pay, holiday pay and claimant 1's travelling expenses: claimant 1 £8,656 notice pay, £303.85 travelling expenses and £1,278 holiday pay; claimant 3 £1,150.45 notice pay and £266 holiday pay; claimant 4 £3,990 notice pay and £332.50 holiday pay. The printed total for claimant 1 is £15,811.50, although the itemised figures in paragraph 6 appear to be £0.85 higher than the subtotal implied by the other awards. | Upheld | — | £15,976 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claimants 1, 3 and 4's claim for unauthorised deductions when they were laid off was dismissed because the contract contained a term permitting 'laying off'. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that the respondent deducted claimant 1's layoff payment from her wages without authorisation, contrary to s.13(1) ERA 1996, and ordered repayment of £150 gross. | Upheld | — | £150 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,680
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.13(1) ERA 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.