Case 2415217/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Clough v Prosperity Capital Partners Ltd. — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415217/2021
- Decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Clough
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent did not present a valid response within the prescribed time. Employment Judge Holmes recorded that the claimant, Ms S Clough, was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment. The tribunal found that she had 5 years' service, all above the age of 41, and that she had been paid in excess of the capped weekly amount of £544, so her redundancy payment was 7.5 weeks at £544, totalling £4,080.
The tribunal also found that the respondent, in breach of contract, failed to pay the claimant 5 weeks' notice pay. The award for that claim was £3,846.15, ordered to be paid less deductions for tax and national insurance, which the respondent was required to account for to HMRC.
A further complaint for failure to pay an amount due under regulation 14(2) or regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was held to be well-founded. The tribunal ordered payment of £4,015.38, described as the amount notified in the claimant's final payslip, again subject to deductions for tax and national insurance. The combined monetary awards in the judgment total £11,941.53 before any tax and national insurance deductions.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded 7.5 weeks at the capped weekly amount of £544. The award was ordered without deductions. | Upheld | — | £4,080 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay 5 weeks' notice pay. The order was for £3,846.15 less deductions for tax and national insurance, for which the respondent must account to HMRC. | Upheld | — | £3,846 |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states the complaint was well-founded under regulation 14(2) or regulation 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The award was £4,015.38, as notified in the claimant's final payslip, less deductions for tax and national insurance, for which the respondent must account to HMRC. | Upheld | — | £4,015 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,942
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 21
- regulation 14(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 16(1) Working Time Regulations 1998
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.