Case 2501736/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Charlton v Kingly Solicitors Ltd. t/a Coles Solicitors (in voluntary liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501736/2020
- Decision date
- 1 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Members
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Charlton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Charlton was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 12 August 2020 after an SRA intervention shut the Respondent's offices. Her redundancy payment claim was dismissed because she had already received a statutory redundancy payment from the Redundancy Payments Service and was not entitled to a second redundancy award.
The breach of contract claim succeeded for notice pay and accrued holiday. The tribunal found she was contractually entitled to 3 months' notice, but was dismissed without notice; it awarded £317.75 net for notice pay, £53.55 for employer pension contributions, and £11.94 for 4 days' untaken holiday after deducting the sums already paid by the Redundancy Payments Service. The unlawful deduction from wages claim also succeeded in respect of unpaid wages for 1 August 2020 to 12 August 2020, with £281.54 plus £37.80 pension contributions awarded.
The unfair dismissal claim was upheld as procedurally unfair, but no basic award was payable because she had already received a statutory redundancy payment, and the compensatory award was reduced by 100% on Polkey because the tribunal found she would have been dismissed in any event when the offices closed. The tribunal also made a £700 section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for failure to provide a written statement of changes to employment particulars, and declined any ACAS uplift. The total award was £1,402.58.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment from the Redundancy Payments Service and was not entitled to a further redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Succeeded for notice pay and accrued holiday pay. The tribunal found a contractual notice period of 3 months and awarded £317.75 net for notice pay, £53.55 for employer pension contributions for the notice period, and £11.94 for 4 days' untaken holiday after deducting sums already received from the Redundancy Payments Service. The reasons record inconsistent dates for the claimant's new employment (1 September 2020 and 7 September 2020), but the notice calculation was based on 3.4 weeks to re-employment. | Upheld | — | £383 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant was not paid for 1 August 2020 to 12 August 2020. The tribunal awarded £281.54 after offsetting the Redundancy Payments Service payment, plus £37.80 for employer pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £319 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair, but no basic award was payable because the claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment, and the compensatory award was reduced by 100% on Polkey because the claimant would have been dismissed in any event when the offices closed after the SRA intervention. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for the Respondent's failure to provide a written statement containing particulars of changes to employment particulars. The tribunal declined any ACAS uplift. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,403
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- s.139 ERA 1996
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.