Case 2300624/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ms M Wilson & others (see schedule) v Elliot House Limited — 2022

Case reference: 2300624/2022
Decision date: 9 September 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dyal Representation
Venue: London South

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms M Wilson & others (see schedule)

Respondent

Elliot House Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal held that all claimants except Amanda Humphreys and Amy Goldsmith were unfairly dismissed contrary to ss.94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 and were entitled to statutory redundancy payments. Amy Goldsmith's unfair dismissal and redundancy claims were dismissed upon withdrawal.

The tribunal also found that the respondent breached s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by failing to arrange elections for employee representatives, and ordered a protective award under s.189 TULRCA 1992 for all claimants. It further held that all claimants were wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract and entitled to notice pay, and that claims for payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday under reg.15 Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded.

In addition, the tribunal found breaches of contract in relation to employer pension contributions from April 2020 to the effective date of termination, unlawful deductions from wages in relation to pension deductions, deductions in the pay period ending 26 November 2021, and failure to pay Statutory Maternity Pay to Jody Rabbitts. It also upheld claims under s.92(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 for written reasons for dismissal, s.8 Employment Rights Act 1996 for itemised pay statements, and s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996 for written particulars of employment. Remedy on all matters was left to be determined, so no monetary awards were fixed in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

10 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that all claimants except Amanda Humphreys and Amy Goldsmith were unfairly dismissed contrary to ss.94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. Amy Goldsmith's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.	Upheld	—	—
Redundancy	The tribunal held that all claimants except Amanda Humphreys and Amy Goldsmith were entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. Amy Goldsmith's redundancy claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.	Upheld	—	—
Trade union	The tribunal found a breach of s.188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 because the respondent failed to arrange elections for employee representatives, and held that all claimants were entitled to a protective award under s.189 TULRCA 1992.	Upheld	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal held that all claimants were wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract and were entitled to notice pay.	Upheld	—	—
Working time regulations	All claimants succeeded in their claims for payment in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday under regulation 15 of the Working Time Regulations 1998.	Upheld	—	—
Breach of contract	The tribunal held that the respondent breached each claimant's contract of employment by failing to make employers' pension contributions to the occupational pension scheme provider from April 2020 until the effective date of termination.

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.