Case 2501751/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E L Huscroft v Kingly Solicitors Ltd. t/a Coles Solicitors (in voluntary liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501751/2020
- Decision date
- 1 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Members
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E L Huscroft
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent's offices were closed on 12 August 2020 following an intervention by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The claimant, a solicitor employed since 19 October 2015, was dismissed by reason of redundancy on that date. She had already received final pay to the end of July 2020, but no further payment for redundancy, notice, accrued holiday, expenses, or wages for 1 to 12 August 2020.
The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim because the claimant had already received a statutory redundancy payment from the Redundancy Payments Service. It upheld the breach of contract claim for notice pay, holiday pay and unpaid expenses, finding a contractual entitlement to 3 months' notice, 7.5 days' accrued but untaken holiday, and unpaid expenses of £294.20. The awards were limited by the claimant's new employment on 1 September 2020 and by sums already received from the Redundancy Payments Service, producing a breach of contract award of £1,738.02.
The tribunal also upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim for the period 1 to 12 August 2020 and awarded £1,520.01 plus £106.44 employer pension contributions. It found the dismissal procedurally unfair, but no basic award was payable because of the statutory redundancy payment and the compensatory award was reduced by 100% under Polkey because the claimant would still have been dismissed when the offices closed. A separate award of £1,576.92 was made under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide a compliant written statement of particulars or changes. The total award was £4,941.39, and no ACAS uplift was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 for notice pay, holiday pay and unpaid expenses. The tribunal found a contractual entitlement to 3 months' notice, 7.5 days' accrued but untaken holiday, and unpaid expenses of £294.20. The award comprised £377.17 notice pay, £92.25 employer pension contributions, £974.40 holiday pay after deducting £504 already received, and £294.20 expenses. | Upheld | — | £1,738 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded for unpaid wages for 1 August 2020 to 12 August 2020. The award comprised £1,520.01 plus £106.44 employer pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £1,626 |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for failure to provide a compliant written statement of particulars/changes. The tribunal awarded two weeks' pay. | Upheld | — | £1,577 |
| Unfair dismissal | The dismissal was found 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% under Polkey because she would still have been dismissed when the offices closed on 12 August 2020. | Upheld | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,941
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.135 ERA 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.13 ERA 1996
- University of Sunderland v Droussou
- s.1(1) ERA 1996
- s.4(1) ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- 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.