Case 2501742/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v John v Kingly Solicitors Ltd T/a Coles Solicitors (in voluntary liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501742/2020
- Decision date
- 1 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Members
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs V John had worked for the Respondent solicitors' practice since 11 March 2014. On 12 August 2020 the Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened, all offices closed immediately, and the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy without warning, consultation, or notice. The tribunal accepted that her contract entitled her to 3 months' notice and 25 days' annual leave for the leave year, and it also found that she had been paid on or about the 25th of each month from April 2020 onwards.
The redundancy payment claim was dismissed because the Claimant accepted that she had already received a statutory redundancy payment from the Redundancy Payments Service. The breach of contract claim succeeded in respect of notice pay and accrued but untaken holiday: the tribunal found that she was entitled to compensation for 2.6 weeks' notice loss before starting new employment on 1 September 2020, plus employer pension contributions for that period, and for 8.5 days' untaken holiday at her gross daily rate.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim also succeeded for the unpaid period from 1 August 2020 to 12 August 2020, together with the related employer pension contributions. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but the basic award was extinguished by the statutory redundancy payment and the compensatory award was reduced by 100% under Polkey because the tribunal found that the Claimant would have been dismissed for redundancy on 12 August 2020 even if a fair procedure had been followed. The tribunal refused any ACAS uplift and recorded a total award of £1,003.40.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the Claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment from the Redundancy Payments Service and was not entitled to a further redundancy award. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Succeeded in respect of notice pay and accrued holiday pay. The award comprised £99.12 for notice pay after set-off against the Redundancy Payments Service payment, £70.77 for employer pension contributions on the notice period, and £161.66 for 8.5 days' untaken holiday. | Upheld | — | £332 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded for unpaid wages for 1 August 2020 to 12 August 2020. The award comprised £606.57 and £65.28 for employer pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £672 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair, but no compensatory award was payable because there was a 100% chance the Claimant would have been dismissed by reason of redundancy in any event under the Polkey principles. The basic award was extinguished by the statutory redundancy payment already received. | Upheld | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,003
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.98(1), (2) and (4) ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.207A TULRCA 1992
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.