Case 2302951/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Elaine Tapsell, Ms Maria Hughes, and Mr Ellis Tilley-Hughes v Consult Group Ltd [R1], Consult Cleaning Limited [R2] (dissolved), Mr Gavin Galloway [R3], and Ms Carly Crombie [R4] — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302951/2024
- Decision date
- 23 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Elaine Tapsell, Ms Maria Hughes, and Mr Ellis Tilley-Hughes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondents did not file ET3 responses or attend, so the tribunal determined the case on the claimants' evidence under Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Claims against Consult Cleaning Ltd were dismissed because the company had been dissolved on 11 June 2024 and had not been restored to the register. Claims against Mr Gavin Galloway and Ms Carly Crombie were also dismissed because the statutory employment rights were enforceable against the employer company, and the tribunal found the narrow veil-piercing principles in Prest v Petrodel Resources were not made out.
All unfair dismissal claims were dismissed under s.108 ERA 1996. The tribunal found that Ms Maria Hughes and Mr Ellis Tilley-Hughes had about five months' service and Mrs Elaine Tapsell about 14 to 15 months, so none met the two-year qualifying period. Mrs Tapsell's unfair dismissal claim also failed because she was still employed and had not been dismissed.
On holiday pay, the tribunal accepted Ms Hughes's calculation of £289.51 for accrued holiday plus £44.20 for bank holiday working, and Mr Tilley-Hughes's holiday pay claim of £91.20. Mrs Tapsell's holiday pay claim, although calculated at £652.43, was not payable while her employment continued because Regulation 14 WTR 1998 only provides payment in lieu on termination, consistent with Sash Window Workshop Ltd v King. The tribunal also applied Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton when addressing holiday pay as normal remuneration.
The tribunal found Consult Group Ltd had made unlawful deductions from wages, including Mrs Tapsell's £263.03 underpayment for her supervisor role. It also found breaches of s.8 ERA 1996 and s.1 ERA 1996, with section 38 Employment Act 2002 awards of two weeks' pay for the documentation failures: £221 each to Ms Hughes, £114 each to Mr Tilley-Hughes, and £240 each to Mrs Tapsell. For the written-particulars issue, the tribunal referred to Stefanko v Maritime Hotel Ltd. The total awards were £775.71 to Ms Hughes, £319.20 to Mr Tilley-Hughes, and £743.03 to Mrs Tapsell, making £1,837.94 in all.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for all claimants. The tribunal found none had the two years' continuous service required by s.108 ERA 1996; Mrs Elaine Tapsell also remained employed and therefore had not been dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld against Consult Group Ltd. The tribunal quantified Mrs Elaine Tapsell's supervisor-rate underpayment at £263.03 and found the wage-deduction complaints to be well-founded. | Upheld | — | £263 |
| Holiday pay | Upheld for Ms Maria Hughes (£289.51 holiday pay plus £44.20 for bank holiday working) and Mr Ellis Tilley-Hughes (£91.20 holiday pay). Mrs Elaine Tapsell's holiday pay claim was dismissed because she remained employed and Regulation 14 WTR 1998 only provides payment in lieu on termination. | Upheld | — | £425 |
| Other | Failure to provide itemised pay statements under ss.8 and 11 ERA 1996. Two weeks' pay was awarded to each claimant: £221.00 to Ms Maria Hughes, £114.00 to Mr Ellis Tilley-Hughes, and £240.00 to Mrs Elaine Tapsell. | Upheld | — | £575 |
| Other | Failure to provide written particulars of employment under s.1 ERA 1996 and s.38 Employment Act 2002. Two weeks' pay was awarded to each claimant: £221.00 to Ms Maria Hughes, £114.00 to Mr Ellis Tilley-Hughes, and £240.00 to Mrs Elaine Tapsell. | Upheld | — | £575 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,838
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
14 references- Rule 22 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.8 ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- Regulations 13, 14 and 16 WTR 1998
- Prest v Petrodel Resources [2013] UKSC 34
- Smith v Henniker-Major & Co [2002] EWCA Civ 762
- Secretary of State v Neufeld [2009] EWCA Civ 280
- Chandler v Cape Plc [2012] EWCA Civ 525
- Bear Scotland Ltd v Fulton [2015] ICR 221
- Sash Window Workshop Ltd v King [2018] ICR 693
- Stefanko v Maritime Hotel Ltd [2018] UKEAT/0024/18
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.