Case 1806763/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Sweeney v Liberty Trading GB Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806763/2022
- Decision date
- 19 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Sweeney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the correct respondent was Liberty Trading GB Limited and dismissed the claims against all other respondents. The respondent did not attend the hearing and had not served an ET3, so the tribunal proceeded in its absence.
The claimant succeeded on his statutory redundancy payment claim. The tribunal found that claim well-founded and ordered Liberty Trading GB Limited to pay £9,489 gross, with the claimant required to account to HMRC for any tax and/or national insurance contributions due on that sum.
The claimant's claim for unauthorised deductions from wages, relating to his pay for June 2022, was dismissed. The tribunal held that the claim was presented out of time, found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time, and concluded that it was not well founded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the statutory redundancy payment well-founded and ordered Liberty Trading GB Limited to pay £9,489 gross, subject to any tax and national insurance due. | Upheld | — | £9,489 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim concerned pay for June 2022. The tribunal held it was out of time, found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time, and dismissed it as not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,489
- across all upheld claims
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.