Case 2203187/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss F Hickinbotham v v Oasis Fashions Limited (in administration) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2203187/2020
- Decision date
- 8 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss F Hickinbotham v
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent, which went into administration on 15 April 2020. The claimant brought claims including arrears of pay and notice pay, and the administrators consented to the claim proceeding. A protective award had already been addressed in a separate judgment dated 28 January 2022.
At the video hearing on 18 July 2022, the claimant did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal accepted the information in the claimant's claim form that she was entitled to 12 weeks' notice, was not given notice or pay in lieu, and was owed £9,127.76 gross after a capped Redundancy Payments Service payment.
The tribunal also accepted that the claimant was entitled to arrears of pay for 1 to 15 April 2020, had received a part payment from the Redundancy Payments Service, and was still owed £280.92 gross. Both the arrears of pay and notice pay claims succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as arrears of pay due for 1 to 15 April 2020 after a capped payment by the Redundancy Payments Service. | Upheld | — | £281 |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as notice pay and damages for breach of notice, after a capped payment by the Redundancy Payments Service. | Upheld | — | £9,128 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,409
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - rule 47
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.