Case 1801305/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Varley v Trade Hydro Ltd (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801305/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Varley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant was dismissed by the first respondent by reason of redundancy and, by agreement, was entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,840.
It found that the first respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages between 3 October 2022 and 28 November 2022. It also found that the second respondent ought to make a payment of £3,040 under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and had failed to do so.
The tribunal further found that the first respondent failed to pay holiday pay on termination and was in breach of its obligation to give notice to terminate the claimant's employment. It recorded that the second respondent ought to make payments of £570 for holiday pay and £2,175.48 for notice under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with the claimant responsible for any tax or National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment states the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and, by agreement, is entitled to a redundancy payment of £6,840. | Upheld | — | £6,840 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the first respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages for the period 3 October 2022 to 28 November 2022, and that the second respondent ought to make a payment of £3,040 under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £3,040 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states the first respondent failed to pay holiday pay on termination in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and that the second respondent ought to make a payment of £570 under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £570 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states the first respondent was in breach of its obligation to give notice to terminate employment, and that the second respondent ought to make a payment of £2,175.48 under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,175 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,625
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.