Case 2406811/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Heron v Manchester City Lettings Limited (in creditors voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2406811/2023
- Decision date
- 1 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Heron
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Heron succeeded in her claim of unfair dismissal under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that she worked for Manchester City Lettings Limited from 3 May 2016 until 18 March 2023, which amounted to six complete years, and used her gross weekly pay of £769.23 and the then applicable gross weekly pay limit of £643 to calculate a basic award of £3,858.
For the compensatory award, the tribunal found that the claimant was unemployed from 18 March 2023 until 1 June 2023, a period of 11 weeks, and received income of £2,031.55 during that period. It assessed the loss for that period at £4,805.28. It then found that her net monthly pay in new employment was £1,600 compared with a former net monthly pay of £2,489, producing a net monthly loss of £889. On that basis, the tribunal awarded £14,224 for the 16-month period from 1 June 2023 to 24 September 2024, making a total compensatory award of £19,029.28.
The breach of contract claim was also successful. Applying section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to six weeks' notice pay and ordered the respondent to pay £4,615.38. The claim for compensation related to entitlement to leave on termination of employment under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was likewise successful: the tribunal found that the respondent's leave year ran from January to December, that the claimant was entitled to 28 days' annual leave each year, that by 18 March 2023 she had accrued 21% of that entitlement, equivalent to 6 days, and that her gross daily rate was £153.85. It awarded £923.08.
The tribunal stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996 applied to the unfair dismissal award. It identified a prescribed element of £19,029.28 for the period 18 March 2023 to 24 September 2024 and said the balance payable by the respondent to the claimant, pending recoupment, was £9,396.46. The total award was £28,425.74.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Successful under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal assessed a basic award of £3,858 and a compensatory award of £19,029.28. The compensatory award comprised £4,805.28 for the period of unemployment from 18 March 2023 to 1 June 2023 and £14,224 for the period from 1 June 2023 to 24 September 2024. | Upheld | — | £22,887 |
| Breach of contract | Successful claim for notice pay. The tribunal held that, because the claimant had six complete years' service, section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 entitled her to six weeks' pay in lieu of notice. | Upheld | — | £4,615 |
| Working time regulations | Successful claim for compensation related to entitlement to leave on termination of employment under regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The tribunal found that by 18 March 2023 the claimant had accrued 6 days' annual leave and awarded £923.08. | Upheld | — | £923 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,426
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,858
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £19,029
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefit) Regulations 1996
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.