Case 2405675/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Ezard v Total Physiotherapy Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2405675/2022
- Decision date
- 25 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dennehy Case
- Venue
- Manchester via Cloud Video Platform
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Ezard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the claimant's ET1 to include a breach of contract claim for six weeks' unpaid notice and ordered Total Physiotherapy Limited (in voluntary liquidation) to pay £1,346.28 gross, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. The judgment records that the amendment would stand if no reconsideration request was made within 28 days.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of redundancy, but found the process unfair because there had been no consultation. It calculated a basic award of £448.76, then reduced that award to nil because the claimant had already received £448.76 from the Insolvency Service for two weeks' redundancy payment. The compensatory award was nil under the Polkey principle because the tribunal considered the claimant would have been dismissed in any event once the respondent had gone into liquidation.
The tribunal also upheld the complaint under Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s188 and ordered a protective award under s189 for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 02 May 2022. The award is expressed as remuneration for that period and, using the weekly wage stated in the judgment, comes to £2,884.89.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The ET1 was amended to include six weeks' unpaid notice pay, and the tribunal ordered payment gross, subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,346 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was by reason of redundancy but unfair because there had been no consultation. The basic award was calculated at £448.76 but reduced to nil because the claimant had already received £448.76 from the Insolvency Service for two weeks' redundancy payment; the compensatory award was nil under the Polkey principle. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Other | The complaint under TULR(C)A 1992 s188 was well founded and the tribunal ordered a protective award under s189 for a 90-day protected period beginning on 02 May 2022. The amount is derived from the weekly wage stated in the judgment. | Upheld | — | £2,885 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,231
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- Polkey principle
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited 1988 ICR 142
- TULR(C)A 1992 s188
- TULR(C)A 1992 s189
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.