Case 2501732/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A G Eastwood v Kingly Solicitors Ltd. t/a Coles Solicitors (in voluntary liquidation) — 2021

Case reference: 2501732/2020
Decision date: 1 March 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Newburn Members

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A G Eastwood

Respondent

Kingly Solicitors Ltd. t/a Coles Solicitors (in voluntary liquidation)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr A G Eastwood was employed by Kingly Solicitors Ltd. t/a Coles Solicitors from 27 April 2018 as a solicitor. On 12 August 2020 the Respondent’s offices were shut immediately following an intervention by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy without warning, consultation, or notice. He later obtained other employment after the dismissal.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Redundancy	Claim withdrawn after the Claimant had received a statutory redundancy payment from the Redundancy Payments Service.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Claim for unpaid wages withdrawn after the Claimant had received payment from the Redundancy Payments Service.	Withdrawn	—	—
Breach of contract	Succeeded in respect of notice pay and holiday pay under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994. Award comprised £2,960.60 net notice pay, £151.45 employer pension contributions, and £1,148.03 gross holiday pay after credit for £618.81 already paid by the Redundancy Payments Service.	Upheld	—	£4,260
Unfair dismissal	Dismissal found procedurally unfair, but no compensation was payable because the Claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment and the compensatory award was reduced by 100% on Polkey principles.	Upheld	—	£0

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £4,260; across all upheld claims
Compensatory award: £0; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.