Case 2301738/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Katherine Connolly v Intisar Salem Ali Alsabah and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301738/2021
- Decision date
- 27 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Katherine Connolly
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Katherine Connolly was an employee of Prismologie International Ltd, not of Intisar Salem Ali Alsabah personally. It accepted that she had been offered employment on behalf of the second respondent in December 2018, started work on 1 February 2019, worked as chief executive officer, and acted in the name of the second respondent only. It did not accept the respondent's suggestion that she was a consultant or that there had been any consultancy agreement. On that basis, the claim against the first respondent was dismissed because she was neither an employee nor a worker of the first respondent and no guarantee of the second respondent's liabilities was proved.
The tribunal found that the claimant's employment ended on 7 November 2021 when she was removed as a director, told to hand over documentation and social media because she no longer worked for the company, and lost access to email and Microsoft Teams. Her contract provided for four months' notice and there was no evidence of gross misconduct. The tribunal calculated the loss for that notice period at £48,600 gross, made up of £45,000 pay and £3,600 employer pension contributions at 8%, but the damages were capped at £25,000 under the tribunal's contract damages limit.
On holiday pay, the tribunal found that the leave year ran from 1 February to 31 January and that the claimant had taken no annual leave in any of the three leave years considered. It held that the first year's untaken leave could not be carried over because there was no express agreement and no request or refusal of leave, but that the second year's entitlement could be carried forward because COVID-19 disruption and the structure of the business meant it was not reasonably practicable for her to take leave. It then held that 58 days' accrued but untaken leave remained payable on termination, worth £30,421 gross. On wages, the tribunal found that the claimant was not paid salary from 1 February 2021 to 7 November 2021 and awarded £103,840 gross, while declining any separate award for employer pension contributions because they are not wages for the purposes of section 27 ERA 1996. The resulting awards were £25,000, £30,421 and £103,840, subject to the usual tax and national insurance deductions where applicable.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that the second respondent terminated the claimant without the four months' contractual notice. It calculated gross notice damages at £48,600, including 8% employer pension contributions, but applied the tribunal's £25,000 contract damages cap. The claim against the first respondent was dismissed because the claimant was neither an employee nor a worker of the first respondent and no guarantee of the second respondent's liabilities was proved. | Upheld | — | £25,000 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that 58 days' accrued but untaken leave remained unpaid on termination. It found no carry-over for the first leave year, but accepted carry-over of the second year's entitlement because COVID-19 disruption made it not reasonably practicable for the claimant to take leave. | Upheld | — | £30,421 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that no salary had been paid from 1 February 2021 to 7 November 2021 and calculated 40 weeks' gross wages due at £2,596 per week. It made no award for employer pension contributions because they do not fall within the statutory definition of wages. | Upheld | — | £103,840 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £159,261
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.230(1) ERA 1996
- s.230(3) ERA 1996
- control, mutuality of obligation and personal performance
- s.13(9) ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- Working Time (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
- tribunal contract damages cap of £25,000
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.