Case 2500172/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Sharp v E Hoult Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500172/2023
- Decision date
- 13 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Sharp
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs D Sharp presented claims for a redundancy payment, notice pay and accrued outstanding holiday pay. The respondent did not file a response, and by letter dated 3 March 2023 an insolvency practitioner stated that the respondent did not dispute that Mrs Sharp was owed monies but was financially unable to pay them. The tribunal therefore treated the claim as not defended and entered a Rule 21 judgment on the basis of the ET1 material.
The tribunal held that the claim for a redundancy payment under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and succeeded. It also held that the claim for notice pay was well-founded and succeeded, and that the claim for accrued and outstanding holiday pay under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was well-founded and succeeded. The judgment was confined to liability.
The tribunal recorded that there was insufficient information in the ET1 form to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded. It therefore deferred quantum to a hearing listed for 5 April 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay succeeded on liability only; no sum was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim under section 163 ERA 1996 succeeded on liability only; compensation was to be decided at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued and outstanding holiday pay under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 succeeded on liability only; no amount was determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.