Case 2404686/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs V Anderson v Sole Biz Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2404686/2024
- Decision date
- 21 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs V Anderson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Holmes found the claimant's complaints of breach of contract (notice pay), entitlement to a redundancy payment, holiday pay (treated as an unauthorised deduction from wages), and unfair dismissal all well-founded against Sole Biz Ltd (in creditors' voluntary liquidation). The respondent was ordered to pay £2,059.20 gross as notice pay damages, £3,088.80 as a redundancy payment, and £503.36 for unpaid accrued holiday.
Although the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded, no basic award was made because it was extinguished by the redundancy payment, and the tribunal saw no basis for a compensatory award given that the claimant was receiving notice pay and her employment would, in the tribunal's view, most likely have ended in any event. The claimant was given 14 days to provide a basis and calculations should she wish to pursue a compensatory award. No award was made for a separate wages claim because the amounts claimed were not before the tribunal.
The tribunal also found the respondent had failed to comply with s.188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protective award covering the 90-day period beginning 5 July 2024, with recoupment regulations applying. The sum was not quantified; the claimant was directed to contact the liquidators and, in the event of dispute or non-payment, to bring a further claim under s.192 of the 1992 Act.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded as damages for breach of contract; paid gross to reflect potential Post Employment Notice Pay tax treatment. | Upheld | — | £2,059 |
| Redundancy | Claimant dismissed by reason of redundancy; statutory redundancy payment ordered, not subject to tax or NI. | Upheld | — | £3,089 |
| Holiday pay | Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction from wages for holidays accrued but not taken on termination. | Upheld | — | £503 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The holiday pay complaint was framed by the tribunal as an unauthorised deduction from wages; the £503.36 award covers both characterisations and is not a separate sum. | Upheld | — | £503 |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint well-founded but no basic award (extinguished by the redundancy payment) and no compensatory award made at this stage, as the tribunal could see no basis given notice pay and the likelihood employment would have ended in any event. Claimant given 14 days to provide a basis and calculations for any compensatory award. | Upheld | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,651
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 22
- s.188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.192 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, Article 12
- section 17 Judgments Act 1838
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.