Ms J Steel & others (see attached schedule) v Munford Haulage Ltd. (in compulsory liquidation) and 1 other — 2021

The tribunal found that the Second Respondent, Munford & Sons Ltd, was the employer at the date of termination for all claimants because it paid the wages and administered the pension provisions. It removed the First Respondent, Munford Haulage Ltd, from the proceedings under rule 34 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It also found that Ms Steel could be appointed under sections 206(4) and (5)(a) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to continue Mr Wilkinson's redundancy-payment claim because he had authorised her before his death, but that appointment did not extend to notice-pay or breach of contract claims.

On liability, the tribunal declared that each claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a statutory redundancy payment, except Mr Messruther (1807382/2019) and Mr Fry (1807385/2019), who were found not to have 2 years' continuous employment. It also declared that each claimant apart from Mr Wilkinson was wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract and entitled to damages for the notice period they should have received.

The tribunal further declared that each claimant apart from Mr Wilkinson was entitled to payment for accrued but untaken holiday outstanding at termination. Mr Wilkinson's notice-pay and holiday-pay claims were stayed for 6 months pending confirmation of who had authority to continue them on behalf of his estate. Because the respondent was insolvent and claims might be made to the Redundancy Payments Office, final quantification of sums owed was postponed, and any relisting was deferred until 3 months after the decision was sent.