Case 2301658/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matthew Burton-Bowen v Hybrid Fitness Support Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) Secretary of State for Business and Trade — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301658/2024
- Decision date
- 22 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Matthew Burton-Bowen
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn proceedings against Hybrid Fitness Support Ltd (in voluntary liquidation), the tribunal treated the Secretary of State for Business and Trade as a party under Rule 96 because the case might involve payment out of the National Insurance Fund. It found that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded for the period 30 September 2023 to 1 November 2023 and ordered the respondent to pay £3,666, the gross sum deducted.
The tribunal also found the notice pay complaint well-founded and the holiday pay complaint well-founded. In both heads, and in the redundancy payment claim, the claimant had already recovered the sums owed from the Insolvency Service, so the tribunal recorded no financial award for those claims. It determined under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,929.
The unfair dismissal complaint was also well-founded. Because the claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment, no basic award was made, but the tribunal awarded a compensatory award of £7,739. It recorded that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages in the period 30 September 2023 to 1 November 2023 and ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. | Upheld | — | £3,666 |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay complaint was well-founded, but the claimant had recovered the sum owed from the Insolvency Service, so no financial award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found an unauthorised deduction in respect of holiday pay because holidays accrued but untaken at the end of employment were not paid, but the claimant had recovered the sum owed from the Insolvency Service, so no financial award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal determined that the claimant was entitled to a redundancy payment of £1,929, but the claimant had recovered the sum owed from the Insolvency Service, so no financial award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The dismissal was found unfair. The claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment, so no basic award was made, and the tribunal awarded a compensatory award of £7,739. The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply. | Upheld | — | £7,739 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,739
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £7,739
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 96
- s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.