Case 1803061/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N D Crowther, Miss W Whitehead, Mr J Riley, Mr D Barlow, Mr T Harrison, Mr S Latham, Mr J McDermott, Mr K Birkett all in person. Mr N D Crowther on behalf of Mr D Pinder and Miss S Holmes For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803061/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Appearance
- Venue
- Sheffield in person
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr N D Crowther, Miss W Whitehead, Mr J Riley, Mr D Barlow, Mr T Harrison, Mr S Latham, Mr J McDermott, Mr K Birkett all in person. Mr N D Crowther on behalf of Mr D Pinder and Miss S Holmes For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal declared that the claimants were dismissed by the respondent by reason of redundancy on 28 April 2023. Their contracts were summarily terminated after the premises at which they worked had been damaged by fire, causing closure of the workplace. The Tribunal stated that there were no grounds for summary dismissal and that the claimants were wrongfully dismissed.
The claimants confirmed they had received in full from the Redundancy Payment Service their notice-period pay, redundancy payments, wage arrears up to and including 28 April 2023, and outstanding holiday pay. Their remaining claim concerned wages for 29 April 2023 to 16 June 2023, said to relate to insurance money paid to SPI Global Play Limited, the respondent's parent company.
The Tribunal considered that SPI was not a party to the proceedings and that, because the claimants were not SPI employees and had no contract with SPI, the Tribunal appeared to have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against SPI. It observed that any possible complaint about money allegedly earmarked for the claimants would need to be pursued in the County Court. As the claimants had received all payments due from the Redundancy Payment Service, the complaints were dismissed save for the redundancy declaration.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal stated that the claimants were wrongfully dismissed because there were no grounds for summary dismissal, but dismissed the claims because notice-period payments due on termination had been paid by the Secretary of State out of the National Insurance Fund. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal declared that the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy on 28 April 2023, but dismissed the claims because redundancy payments had been paid in full by the Redundancy Payment Service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal recorded that arrears of wages up to and including 28 April 2023 had been paid. The further wages claim for 29 April 2023 to 16 June 2023 concerned money said to have been paid to the respondent's parent company; the Tribunal found the parent company was not a party and appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the claimants were not its employees. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The Tribunal recorded that payment for outstanding holiday entitlement had been received in full from the National Insurance Fund. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
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.