Case 2305040/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Marinilza Nazareth v NP3 Building Services Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305040/2020
- Decision date
- 7 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Krepski Representation
- Venue
- London South via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Marinilza Nazareth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMarinilza Nazareth worked as a Contract Manager for the respondent after starting as an agency worker and then joining on 1 September 2019. The tribunal accepted that she was initially employed on £42,000 for 40 hours per week, was told about overtime rates and bonus arrangements, and later agreed with director Niall Connolly that her salary would rise to £48,000 from December 2019. It accepted her evidence, supported by John Gilmartin’s written statement, that she was not paid her full salary from December 2019 onwards and that her employment ended on 22 May 2020.
The tribunal found that she was entitled to one month’s notice under her contract and employee handbook, but had not been given notice when her employment ended and had not been paid in lieu. The wrongful dismissal claim therefore succeeded and £4,000 gross was awarded. It also found that she had 28 days’ leave, had not taken annual leave in 2019 because the respondent asked her not to, and had accrued 21 days of untaken holiday across 2019 and 2020. The holiday pay breach of contract claim succeeded and £3,876.92 gross was awarded. On wages, the tribunal accepted that she had not been paid overtime or much of her basic salary from October 2019, accepted her schedule figures for unpaid salary and overtime, and ordered the gross equivalent of £21,406.09.
A separate claim for a bonus payment failed. The tribunal found that the April bonus was not guaranteed, but depended on company performance, so there was no breach of contract and no award on that issue. For unfair dismissal, the tribunal considered claims under s103A and s104(1)(b) ERA 1996 and held that the relevant basis was s104(1)(b). It found that she had asserted her statutory right under s13 ERA 1996 not to suffer unauthorised deductions, that she did so in good faith, and that this was the principal reason for dismissal; her references to HMRC were treated as the last straw rather than the sole reason.
The tribunal therefore found automatic unfair dismissal under s104(1)(b) and s104(4)(a) ERA 1996. No basic award was made because of the claimant’s length of service. The compensatory award was assessed on the period from 15 June 2020 to 30 November 2020 at £16,656 net, with a further £300 for statutory rights, and then increased by 25% under s124A ERA 1996 because of the respondent’s failure to comply with the Acas Code. The final compensatory award was £23,368.75 gross, and all awarded sums were stated gross, with tax and employee national insurance to be accounted for where applicable. Taken together, the awarded sums total £52,651.76 gross.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Tribunal found no notice was given and awarded one month’s notice pay of £4,000 gross. | Upheld | — | £4,000 |
| Breach of contract | Holiday pay claim succeeded for 21 days of untaken leave; payment in lieu awarded gross. | Upheld | — | £3,877 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Tribunal accepted unpaid salary and overtime from October 2019 and ordered the gross equivalent. | Upheld | — | £21,406 |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s104(1)(b) ERA 1996; compensatory award only, with 25% uplift under s124A. | Upheld | — | £23,369 |
| Breach of contract | Claim for an April bonus failed because the tribunal found it was not guaranteed and was performance-related. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £52,652
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £23,369
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s103A ERA 1996
- s104(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s104(4)(a) ERA 1996
- s13 ERA 1996
- Smith v Hayle Town Council 1978 ICR 996
- s124A ERA 1996
- Acas Code
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.