Case 2402239/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Jones v Proud Goulburn Accountants — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402239/2021
- Decision date
- 17 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dennehy Case
- Venue
- Manchester via Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Jones was an employee of Proud Goulburn Accountants from 1 February 2016 until 31 October 2020. Applying the control, mutuality of obligation and personal performance factors from Ready Mixed Concrete and Autoclenz, it relied on the facts that she was on payroll, tax and national insurance were deducted, she worked at the respondent's premises on its equipment, and Ms Taylor directed and reviewed her work. It held there was no break in continuity when the 28 February 2020 email referred to temporary role 2; that email was treated as a variation of her terms, not a fresh and separate engagement.
On that basis, the claimant's redundancy claim succeeded. The tribunal found that she had four years' continuous service, was aged 52 at termination, and had a gross weekly wage of £156. It calculated the statutory redundancy payment as 1.5 times weekly pay for each year of service, multiplied by four years, giving an award of £936.
The holiday pay claim also succeeded. The tribunal found that the claimant had not taken annual leave in 2020 because of Covid, that she was entitled to four weeks' leave, and that the respondent failed to pay in lieu of that accrued leave on termination. It therefore found an unauthorised deduction from wages and awarded £624 gross. The separate claim for failure to provide written particulars succeeded under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002, because no written statement had ever been provided and there were no exceptional circumstances; the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay, amounting to £624 gross.
The notice pay claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that, although there was no written contract or expressly agreed notice period, the claimant had been told in February and June 2020 that she would be made redundant, the 23 June 2020 email said October would be treated as her notice period unless she found alternative work, and the final payslip showed five weeks' full pay. It therefore concluded that notice had already been paid.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment; the tribunal found continuous employment from 1 February 2016 to 31 October 2020, four years' service, age 52 at termination, and gross weekly pay of £156. | Upheld | — | £936 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Failure to pay in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave on termination; the tribunal awarded four weeks' leave at £156 gross per week. | Upheld | — | £624 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant had been paid her notice in the final pay and final payslip, and the June 2020 email treated October as the notice period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Additional award under section 38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars; the tribunal awarded four weeks' pay gross. | Upheld | — | £624 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,808
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
- Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher
- section 230(1) ERA 1996
- section 230(3) ERA 1996
- section 135 ERA 1996
- section 164 ERA 1996
- section 86 ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996 / section 23 ERA 1996
- section 1 ERA 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
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.