Case 2307903/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Lee Harris, Mrs E Mann and Mrs J Merritt v Provence Leisure Limited and 5 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2307903/2020
- Decision date
- 16 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart REPRESENTATION
Parties
7 namedClaimant
Mr Lee Harris, Mrs E Mann and Mrs J Merritt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal joined the three claims because they arose out of the same facts and law. The case concerned the closure of The Shelleys hotel in Lewes and a dispute about which of several companies, and whether Mr N van Hoogstraten personally, was the employer. A prior default judgment in Mr Harris's favour was set aside. None of the respondents attended the final hearing.
After considering the documents, Companies House material and oral evidence, the tribunal found that the written records did not consistently identify a single employer and did not reflect the true intentions of the parties. It found Provence Leisure Limited was used for payroll administration only, Messina Properties Limited owned the hotel but was not involved in running it, Arco Hotels Limited administered wages and third-party BACS payments but was not the employer, and Mr R Hamilton's role was limited to maintenance. The claims against those respondents were dismissed.
The tribunal found that Mr N van Hoogstraten, acting in a personal capacity and/or trading as The Shelleys, was the most likely employer, and that Richmont Hotels Limited was also a party to the employment contract jointly and severally with him. In reaching that view it relied on the claimants' evidence about day-to-day control, the use of different company names across contracts and payroll documents, and the absence of any pleaded defence or hearing attendance from the respondents. It found the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy due to the hotel closure, with an effective date of termination of 10 October 2021.
Mr Harris succeeded on statutory redundancy pay, outstanding 8 weeks' notice pay and 15 days' accrued holiday pay. The tribunal awarded him £6,600 gross, £2,562.08 net and £960.78 net respectively. Ms Mann succeeded on the same three heads of claim and was awarded £2,284.65 gross, £3,197.60 net and £1,199.10 net. Ms Merritt also succeeded on the same three heads of claim and was awarded £9,679.20 gross, £2,451.92 net and £919.50 net.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Mr Harris; statutory redundancy pay under s.139 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £6,600 |
| Breach of contract | Mr Harris; outstanding 8 weeks' notice pay under s.86 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,562 |
| Holiday pay | Mr Harris; 15 days accrued holiday pay under regulations 13 and 13A WTR 1998. | Upheld | — | £961 |
| Redundancy | Ms Mann; statutory redundancy pay under s.139 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £2,285 |
| Breach of contract | Ms Mann; outstanding 8 weeks' notice pay under s.86 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £3,198 |
| Holiday pay | Ms Mann; 15 days accrued holiday pay under regulations 13 and 13A WTR 1998. | Upheld | — | £1,199 |
| Redundancy | Ms Merritt; statutory redundancy pay under s.139 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £9,679 |
| Breach of contract |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,855
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.230(4) ERA 1996
- Clark v Harney Westwood & Riegels [2021] IRLR 528
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41
- Wittenburg v Sunset Personnel Services Limited and Others
- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- regulations 13 and 13A WTR 1998
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.