Case 2501623/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Flanagan v A1 STOCKTON LIMITED (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501623/2023
- Decision date
- 27 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Flanagan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a liability judgment under Rule 21 after the respondent failed to file a response by the deadline. The judgment was entered on the basis of the information provided by the claimant on the ET1 form, which stated that he was claiming a redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay and arrears of wages.
The tribunal held that the claimant's claim for the unauthorised deduction of wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and succeeded. It also held that the claim for a redundancy payment under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and succeeded.
The claimant's claim for notice pay was also found well-founded and succeeded. The claim for accrued and outstanding holiday pay under Regulations 14 and 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was likewise found well-founded and succeeded. The tribunal recorded that the amount payable would be decided at a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim under section 13 ERA 1996 for arrears of wages was found well-founded on the information provided in the ET1. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim for a redundancy payment under section 163 ERA 1996 was found well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was found well-founded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued and outstanding holiday pay under Regulations 14 and 16 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was found well-founded. | 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.