Case 2501763/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S L Bleanch v Kingly Solicitors Ltd. t/a Coles Solicitors (in voluntary liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501763/2020
- Decision date
- 1 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Members
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S L Bleanch
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Bleanch had been employed by the respondent solicitors since 2 January 1991 as a legal assistant working three days per week. On 12 August 2020 the Solicitors Regulation Authority intervened and the respondent's offices closed immediately. The tribunal found that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy on that date, that she had no written contract or compliant written statement of particulars, and that her statutory notice period was 12 weeks because she had 29 years' service.
The redundancy payment claim was dismissed because she had already received a statutory redundancy payment from the Redundancy Payments Service. The breach of contract claim succeeded for notice pay and holiday pay: the tribunal accepted the claimant's pay figures, found that she had accrued 19 days' annual leave in the holiday year, had taken 3 days, and was owed pay in lieu of the remaining untaken leave. It also awarded employer pension contributions for the notice period. The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded for pay due for 1 to 12 August 2020, again with employer pension contributions added to the award.
The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because there had been no warning, notice or consultation before the closure. However, no compensation was payable on that claim: the basic award was extinguished by the statutory redundancy payment, and the compensatory award was reduced by 100% on a Polkey basis because the tribunal found that she would have been dismissed in any event when the offices closed on 12 August 2020. The tribunal also made a section 38 Employment Act 2002 award of two weeks' pay for the failure to provide written particulars, and it declined any ACAS uplift.
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 any further redundancy award. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Succeeded under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 in respect of notice pay and accrued holiday pay. The award comprised £188.76 net notice pay, £29.20 employer pension contributions for the notice period, and £279.16 gross holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £497 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Succeeded for unpaid wages for 1 August 2020 to 12 August 2020. The award comprised £600.07 gross wages plus £44.88 representing employer pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £645 |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal was found unfair because there had been no warning, notice or consultation after the immediate closure of the respondent's offices. No compensation was payable because the statutory redundancy payment extinguished the basic award and the compensatory award was reduced by 100% on a Polkey basis. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for failure to provide written particulars of employment or written particulars of changes. The tribunal awarded the minimum of two weeks' pay and declined any uplift. | Upheld | — | £499 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,641
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
12 references- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.135 ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- s.98(1), (2) and (4) ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- s.1 ERA 1996
- s.4 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- 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.