Case 2414463/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hardy (1) Mrs J Craig (2) Miss D Morris (3) Mr N Enchine (4) v Orange Eyewear Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414463/2021
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hardy (1) Mrs J Craig (2) Miss D Morris (3) Mr N Enchine (4)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims were determined under rule 21 after the respondent failed to present a valid response and did not attend the hearing. The four claimants gave evidence and produced documents. The tribunal found that all had been employed by Orange Eyewear Ltd, had been paid until the end of September 2021, and had then stopped receiving further payments. It also found that the respondent stopped making pension contributions 17 weeks before 14 October 2021.
On 14 October 2021 Mr Enrico Vivezi emailed the claimants saying furlough had ended, that he was not in a position to hold the company going forward, and that he had to put the company into administration, asking them to return company property. The tribunal found that the email, read as a whole, terminated each claimant's employment on 14 October 2021 even though it did not use an express termination formula and referred to an administration that did not in fact occur. It rejected the view that Mr Enchine remained employed until the later date shown on his P45.
That termination date meant unpaid salary up to 14 October 2021 was an unauthorised deduction from wages. The tribunal also found that each claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. It held that no notice or payment in lieu had been given, so each claimant succeeded in breach of contract in relation to notice. Holiday pay claims also succeeded, with the tribunal accepting carry-over of 2020 leave for Miss Morris, Mr Hardy and Mr Enchine because they had been on furlough and had not been able to take leave.
On pension contributions, the tribunal held that failing to pay deducted employee contributions to the pension scheme was a breach of contract, and that non-payment of employer contributions was also a breach of contract. It relied on Mrs Craig's express contractual term on automatic enrolment and implied the same term into the other claimants' contracts. It awarded gross sums of £692.30, £1,153.94, £1,080.76 and £880 for unpaid wages; £4,673.03, £2,448, £9,186.46 and £880 for redundancy pay; £3,115.35, £2,307.68, £6,484.62 and £1,906.67 for notice; £3,115.35, £2,699.99, £5,295.77 and £4,488 for holiday pay; and £77.88, £491.94, £433.12 and £321.76 for pension-related breach of contract damages. The tribunal considered, but did not impose, a section 12A penalty.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid salary due up to 14 October 2021. Individual awards were Mr Hardy £692.30, Mrs Craig £1,153.94, Miss Morris £1,080.76 and Mr Enchine £880. | Upheld | — | £3,807 |
| Redundancy | Each claimant was found dismissed by reason of redundancy. The judgment text appears to contain a punctuation typo for Miss Morris's figure ('£9,186,46'); this has been treated as £9,186.46. Mrs Craig's statutory calculation used the capped week's pay of £544, and Mr Enchine's award reflected the 14 October 2021 termination date. | Upheld | — | £17,187 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract for failure to give notice or pay in lieu of notice. The tribunal found notice periods of twelve weeks for Miss Morris and nine weeks for Mr Hardy, with four weeks for Mrs Craig and one month for Mr Enchine. | Upheld | — | £13,814 |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay on termination for accrued but untaken annual leave. The tribunal accepted carry-over of 2020 leave for Miss Morris, Mr Hardy and Mr Enchine because they had been on furlough and had not been able to take leave. | Upheld | — | £15,599 |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract for failure to pay pension contributions. The tribunal held that deducting employee contributions and not paying them to the pension scheme was a contractual breach, and also accepted contractual damages for unpaid employer contributions; Mrs Craig had an express term, and the same term was implied for the others. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £51,733
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- Part XI Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.12A Employment Tribunals Act 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.