Case 2401580/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Helen Wesley v Rayhome Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401580/2022
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Helen Wesley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not present a valid response on time, so the tribunal determined the claim under Rules 21 and 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Ms Helen Wesley was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 18 January 2022. The tribunal accepted that she had 17 complete years of service, was under 41, and had gross weekly pay of £576.92, and it calculated a redundancy payment of £9,248 using the relevant cap of £544.
The tribunal also found that Ms Wesley was dismissed without notice and was entitled to 12 weeks' notice. It calculated net notice pay at £5,548.56 and reduced that sum by £1,808.08 earned during the notice period, making an award of £3,740.48 net. In addition, it found unauthorised deductions from wages because the respondent had not paid wages for November and December 2021 and up to 18 January 2022, and because pension contributions were deducted from gross wages but not paid to the pension provider.
The wage-deduction findings produced two separate awards: £4,928.97 net for unpaid wages and £2,185 gross for the pension contribution deductions. The tribunal also found that the claimant was owed pay in lieu of 1.4 days of unused holiday entitlement on termination and awarded £129.46 net. On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal said Ms Wesley had been unfairly dismissed, but made no basic award because the redundancy payment was calculated in the same sum and no compensatory award because it was satisfied that she would have been dismissed in any event given the respondent's closure on 18 January 2022. The total award was £20,231.91.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Dismissed by reason of redundancy on 18 January 2022. The tribunal found 17 complete years of service, age under 41, and gross weekly pay of £576.92, and applied the relevant cap of £544 to calculate the redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £9,248 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed without notice and entitled to 12 weeks' notice. The tribunal calculated net notice pay of £5,548.56, then deducted earnings of £1,808.08 during the notice period to reach £3,740.48 net. | Upheld | — | £3,740 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent failed to pay wages for November and December 2021 and up to 18 January 2022. The tribunal calculated 10.66 weeks at £462.38 net per week, producing £4,928.97 net. | Upheld | — | £4,929 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found deductions from the claimant's pension contributions at £47.50 per month over 46 months, which were not accounted for to the pension provider. It awarded £2,185 gross. | Upheld | — | £2,185 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found 1.4 days of unused holiday entitlement remained on termination. It awarded £129.46 net in lieu of holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £129 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the claimant was unfairly dismissed, but made no basic award because the redundancy payment was calculated in the same sum, and no compensatory award because it was satisfied she would have been dismissed in any event given the respondent's closure on 18 January 2022. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,232
- across all upheld claims
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.