Case 2410407/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Crabbe, Miss J Carroll, Mr J Richter, Miss L Hudson, Mr A Johnson, Mr M Davies, Miss N Stenson, Mr R Owen, Ms J Lyle. v Asel Fashion Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410407/2019
- Decision date
- 28 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson RESERVED
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Crabbe, Miss J Carroll, Mr J Richter, Miss L Hudson, Mr A Johnson, Mr M Davies, Miss N Stenson, Mr R Owen, Ms J Lyle.
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that none of the nine claimants had written contracts of employment and that they had no normal working hours or agreed number of contractual hours each week. It therefore calculated weeks' pay and losses under sections 224 and 228 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, using average weekly remuneration over the 12 weeks before termination where appropriate, and cross-checked the schedules against staff rotas and national minimum pay rates. Intermittent payments made by the respondent on 7 June 2019 were deducted from the relevant awards.
On notice, the tribunal held that the respondent had breached each claimant's contract by failing to provide notice and awarded net damages by claimant, after offsets, totalling £60.76. It also found that the respondent had failed to provide a statement of main terms of employment and made an additional award of four weeks' gross pay to each claimant, totalling £4,196.21.
On holiday pay, the tribunal held that accrued but unpaid annual leave was payable on termination. Applying King v Sash Window Workshop and another [2018] ICR 693 and Regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, it found that each holiday year ran from the individual's start date because no holiday year start had been notified and none of the claimants had worked for more than a year. That produced holiday pay awards totalling £1,993.68. The tribunal also upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim in respect of outstanding pay for Mr Richter, Mr Johnson, Miss Stenson, Mr Owen and Ms Lyle, totalling £974.79. The written record also included the standard interest notice under the Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990, stating an 8% stipulated rate if sums remained unpaid after 14 days, but no separate interest figure was quantified in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Breach of each claimant's contract for lack of notice. Net damages were awarded by claimant after offsets for payments received on 7 June 2019; total across all claimants was £60.76. | Upheld | — | £61 |
| Other | Failure to provide a statement of main terms of employment. The tribunal made an additional award of four weeks' gross pay to each claimant; total £4,196.21. | Upheld | — | £4,196 |
| Holiday pay | Failure to pay in lieu of accrued annual leave. Amounts were calculated using the statutory 5.6 weeks' entitlement, with offsets for payments received on 7 June 2019; total £1,993.68. | Upheld | — | £1,994 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unauthorised deduction from wages in respect of outstanding pay. Awards were made for Mr Richter, Mr Johnson, Miss Stenson, Mr Owen and Ms Lyle; total £974.79. | Upheld | — | £975 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,225
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.224 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.228 Employment Rights Act 1996
- King v Sash Window Workshop and another [2018] ICR 693
- Regulation 13 Working Time Regulations 1998
- Employment Tribunals (Interest) Order 1990
- section 17 of the 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.