Mr J Holy, Solicitor (for all three Claimants) For v Respondent — 2019

Three stylists with long service brought claims for statutory redundancy payments after their employment ended on 24 August 2018, and the first claimant also claimed unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal found that the meeting on 1 June 2018 was about the respondent's financial position, the expiring lease, possible closure, a possible buyer and the staff looking for alternative employment, but it was not a clear notice that employment would end on 24 August 2018. The tribunal accepted that the respondent's note of the meeting was genuine, but it did not accept that notice of dismissal had been given.

Applying section 136 ERA 1996 and the principle in Mitie Security London Limited v Ibrahim that notice must be actually given and communicate an ascertainable end date, the tribunal held that the claimants were not dismissed by redundancy. It found that they understood closure was likely, and that they were advised to look for alternative work, but that formal notice of termination was not given at the 1 June meeting or afterwards. Their departure on 24 August 2018 was therefore treated as a resignation, so the redundancy claims were dismissed. Because of that conclusion, the tribunal did not need to decide the alternative argument under section 141 ERA 1996 about refusal of re-engagement.

The parties agreed that £376.26 gross was due to the first claimant for unpaid holiday pay, and judgment was entered for that sum. The respondent's counterclaim for alleged breaches of contract, based on the claimants taking former clients to a new employer, was dismissed for want of jurisdiction under article 5 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. The tribunal also refused the respondent's later costs application for £5,000, holding that the threshold for a costs order had not been met.