Case 2402756/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs P Gray v Independent Financial Matters Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402756/2019
- Decision date
- 22 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Dated
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mrs Gray's unfair dismissal claim succeeded, but found that she had in fact been dismissed by reason of redundancy. On that basis it awarded a redundancy payment of £1,384.61 and did not make a basic award. It considered compensation for unfair dismissal but concluded that, given the first respondent's insolvency, her employment would have ended in any event even if a fair consultation and procedure had been followed, and that it would not be just and equitable to make a compensatory award.
The tribunal also found that Mrs Gray had been dismissed in breach of contract and was entitled to notice pay. It accepted that she was entitled to three weeks' notice at a net rate of £274.43 per week, totalling £823.29, but found that she had already received £411.63 by way of notice pay and £146.20 in JSA, leaving net damages of £265.46, which the first respondent was ordered to pay as a net sum.
On wages, the tribunal upheld the complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages. It found a deduction of £274.43 net for one week's wages for the period 15 October to 22 October 2018, and further unpaid sums for two weeks worked in hand at the commencement of employment, bringing the total to £823.29 net, which the first respondent was ordered to pay. It also found that the first respondent had failed to consult the claimant under s.188(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, held that she was entitled to a protective award for a 90-day protected period from 22 October 2018, and noted that the protective award is a two-stage process requiring separate quantification. No awards were sought against the second respondent and the claims against it were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy. It declined a compensatory award because, given the employer's insolvency, the employment would have ended in any event and it was not just and equitable to make such an award; no basic award was made. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment calculated at 4.5 weeks at £307.69 per week. | Upheld | — | £1,385 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim succeeded. Three weeks' notice at a net rate of £274.43 per week gave £823.29, from which £411.63 notice pay and £146.20 JSA were deducted, leaving £265.46 net damages. | Upheld | — | £265 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found an unlawful deduction for one week's wages of £274.43 net for 15 October to 22 October 2018 and further deductions for two weeks worked in hand at the start of employment, totalling £823.29. | Upheld | — | £823 |
| Other | Protective award under s.188(1) TULR(C)A 1992. The tribunal held the first respondent failed to consult the claimant as a person affected by proposals to dismiss 20 or more employees and awarded entitlement to a protective award for a 90-day protected period from 22 October 2018, but no financial sum was quantified in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,473
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- just and equitable
- s.188(1) TULR(C)A 1992
- s.192 TULR(C)A 1992
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.