Case 2414551/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Philip Spenceley v Sonetik UK Ltd (In voluntary liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414551/2019
- Decision date
- 4 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Philip Spenceley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was issued under Rule 21 because the respondent had not presented a response to the claims. On the information before the Judge, the tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with statutory collective consultation obligations under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 before proposed redundancy dismissals took effect at its Preston establishment, and made a protective award for the claimant for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 September 2019.
The tribunal also found that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages and ordered payment of the net sum of £3,500. It further found that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice, awarding £3,391.67, and that the respondent breached contract by failing to pay expenses incurred, awarding £550.
The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support) Regulations 1996 were stated to apply to the protective award, and the judgment set out the respondent's obligations to provide information to the Secretary of State before payment under that award became due.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal found the claim for failure to comply with statutory collective consultation obligations before proposed redundancy dismissals was well founded and made a protective award for a protected period of 90 days beginning on 25 September 2019. The judgment did not state a monetary figure for the protective award. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the net sum of £3,500 for unauthorised deduction from wages. | Upheld | — | £3,500 |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded damages of £3,391.67. | Upheld | — | £3,392 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the claimant's contract by failing to pay expenses incurred and awarded damages of £550. | Upheld | — | £550 |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 - Rule 21
- Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Sections 189(1)(d), (2), (3) and (4) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.