Case 2424110/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Philip Mottershead First v Harrison Brothers (Furniture) Ltd (in administration) Second Respondent: Wendy Etchells Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2424110/2017
- Decision date
- 29 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hoey Representatives
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Philip Mottershead First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal added the second respondent as a party under Rule 34, noting that its omission had been an oversight after the earlier case management hearing and that the note of that hearing had made clear it could be liable for the remedy claimed. The first respondent's public policy argument was rejected because the tribunal found no relevant illegality.
The claimant succeeded in his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal awarded no basic award because he had received a redundancy payment, but it made a compensatory award of £5,017.44. That figure comprised £4,567.44 for wage loss and £450 for loss of statutory rights, and it was payable by the first respondent.
The tribunal also upheld the claim for unlawful deduction from wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordered the first respondent to pay the claimant £99.56, being the net shortfall of wages due. In addition, the tribunal found that the first respondent had failed to comply with regulation 13 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 in relation to the duty to elect, inform and consult appropriate representatives of affected employees engaged to carry out office functions, of whom the claimant was one.
For the TUPE breach, the tribunal held that the first and second respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the claimant 13 weeks' pay, assessed at £6,500. The judgment also records that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply to any of the awards.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. No basic award was made because he had received a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £5,017 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the net shortfall of wages due under section 13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £100 |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal declared a failure to comply with regulation 13 of TUPE 2006 and held both respondents jointly and severally liable for 13 weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £6,500 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,617
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,017
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.