Case 2207742/2020 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr D Helm (2) Ms E Gavin v Liongate Securities LLP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207742/2020
- Decision date
- 26 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr D Helm (2) Ms E Gavin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims of Mr Helm and Ms Gavin were consolidated and heard remotely on 25 May 2021 before Employment Judge Gordon Walker. The respondent did not attend. The tribunal amended the respondent's name in case 2207742/2020 to Liongate Securities LLP.
The unfair dismissal claims were dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. It found that each claimant had been employed for less than two years ending with the effective date of termination, so the service requirement in section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not met.
The claims for unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 ERA 1996 were upheld. The tribunal also found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Grievances at Work, so it applied a 25% uplift under section 207A TULR(C)A. The gross sums ordered were £25,563.45 for Mr Helm and £24,885.90 for Ms Gavin.
The holiday pay claims under regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998 were also well founded. The tribunal again applied a 25% uplift under section 207A TULR(C)A, ordering £8,293.28 for each claimant. It further held that the respondent was in breach of contract by dismissing the claimants without notice. Unpaid notice was assessed at £12,500 each, uplifted to £15,625 each, and then capped under article 10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, resulting in awards of £25,000 each.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because each claimant had less than two years' service ending with the effective date of termination, contrary to section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deductions from wages under section 13 ERA 1996 were well founded. The gross sums ordered were £25,563.45 for Mr Helm and £24,885.90 for Ms Gavin, including the 25% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £50,449 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay accrued but unpaid on termination under regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998 was well founded. The gross sums ordered were £8,293.28 for each claimant, including the 25% ACAS uplift. | Upheld | — | £16,587 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found breach of contract in dismissing the claimants without notice. Unpaid notice was assessed at £12,500 each, uplifted by 25% to £15,625 each, and then capped under article 10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994 at £25,000 each. | Upheld | — | £50,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £117,036
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- section 207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- article 10 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
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.