Case 2405486/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Spore v Community Information Services Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405486/2022
- Decision date
- 28 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Spore
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Spore worked for Community Information Services Limited from 1 November 2004 until 30 June 2022 as a Graphics Studio Manager. The respondent went into creditors' voluntary liquidation on 13 September 2022. Neither party attended the hearing, so the tribunal decided the case on the written material provided by the claimant and the liquidators.
The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' notice under section 86 ERA 1996, but he was given and paid only 2 weeks' notice. It therefore held there was a breach of contract and awarded damages for the remaining 10 weeks, calculated using his gross weekly pay of £576.92, producing £5,769.20. It also found he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £9,707 using 17 years' service, age 41, and the statutory weekly cap of £571.
The protective award claim failed because the respondent was not proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment within 90 days, so the section 188 TULR(C)A 1992 consultation duty did not arise. The tribunal also found unauthorised deductions from wages for holiday pay and overtime: £692.30 for 6 days of untaken holiday, and £269.70 for overtime worked. The overtime figure was derived from the liquidators' Statement of Affairs after the tribunal treated £675.45 of the preferential debt as holiday pay and allocated the remaining unsecured debt to notice pay, redundancy pay and overtime. The tribunal ordered payment within 14 days and noted the separate interest notice, but did not quantify interest in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim. The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' notice under section 86 ERA 1996, had been given and paid only 2 weeks, and awarded damages for the balance of 10 weeks using his gross weekly pay. | Upheld | — | £5,769 |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, had 17 years' service, was aged 41 at dismissal, and applied the statutory cap of £571 per week. | Upheld | — | £9,707 |
| Other | Protective award claim under section 188 TULR(C)A 1992. The tribunal found the respondent was not proposing to dismiss 20 or more employees at one establishment, so the duty to consult did not arise. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Holiday pay element. The tribunal found the claimant had accrued 6 days of untaken holiday on termination and awarded 1.2 weeks' gross pay in lieu. | Upheld | — | £692 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Overtime element. The tribunal inferred this amount from the liquidators' Statement of Affairs after treating £675.45 as holiday pay and deducting the notice and redundancy sums from the unsecured debt. | Upheld | — | £270 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,438
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 86(1) ERA 1996
- section 13(1) ERA 1996
- section 23 ERA 1996
- section 135 ERA 1996
- section 162 ERA 1996
- section 227 ERA 1996
- section 188 TULR(C)A 1992
- section 189(1) TULR(C)A 1992
- Rule 66
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990 article 12
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.