Case 2405585/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Hammond v Kaye Johnson Gee LLP Administrators for Tomlaith Limited (in Liquidation) and 1 other — 2022

Case reference: 2405585/2022
Decision date: 24 October 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Phil Allen

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr M Hammond

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing to determine time issues. The claimant's engagement with Tomlaith Ltd ended on 31 October 2021. The Tribunal found that the claimant had not evidenced any redundancy payment claim, written notice to the employer, tribunal reference, or related complaint within six months of that date.

The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the redundancy payment claim against the first respondent under section 164 Employment Rights Act 1996. Because the first respondent could not be liable for a redundancy payment in those circumstances, the claim against the Secretary of State under section 166 also failed, and the redundancy payment claims against both respondents were dismissed.

For arrears of pay, holiday pay and notice pay, the Tribunal applied section 188 Employment Rights Act 1996. It accepted the claimant's evidence that the 30 March 2022 rejection letter had not been received and found that the decision was first communicated on 10 May 2022, so the tribunal claim presented on 14 July 2022 was in time. The Tribunal also stated that, if the 30 March letter had been communicated, it would have found that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim earlier and that the claim was presented within a reasonable further period.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to determine the redundancy payment claim under sections 164 and 166 Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant had not made the claim within the required time.	Dismissed	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The claim for arrears of pay was considered only on jurisdiction/time. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under section 188 Employment Rights Act 1996; the merits and any remedy were not determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—
Holiday pay	The holiday pay claim was considered only on jurisdiction/time. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under section 188 Employment Rights Act 1996; the merits and any remedy were not determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—
Breach of contract	The notice pay claim was considered only on jurisdiction/time. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction under section 188 Employment Rights Act 1996; the merits and any remedy were not determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.