Case 2502370/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Sullivan v Advanced Marble and Granite UK Ltd (in liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502370/2023
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Sullivan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Claimant's claim for a statutory redundancy payment under section 163 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was well-founded and succeeded, and ordered the Respondent to pay £625, representing the shortfall between the £5,626.80 payable and the £5,001.80 already paid. The claim of unfair dismissal also succeeded. The claim for unlawful deduction of wages / notice pay was not well-founded and was dismissed, and the holiday pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
On remedy for unfair dismissal, the Basic Award was reduced to zero under section 122(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by the amount of the statutory redundancy payment. The Tribunal considered it was not just and equitable to make a compensatory award, finding that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event one week later but would have been entitled to no payment in that period due to his refusal to work during his notice period.
At the date of commencement of proceedings, the Respondent was in breach of section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (provision of a written statement of particulars of employment), and was ordered to pay the minimum amount of two weeks' pay (£833.60) under section 38(3) of the Employment Act 2002. The total sum ordered to be paid to the Claimant was £1,458.60.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment under s.163 ERA 1996; £625 being the difference between £5,626.80 payable and £5,001.80 already paid. | Upheld | — | £625 |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim well-founded and succeeds. Basic Award reduced to zero under s.122(4) ERA 1996 by the amount of the statutory redundancy payment. No compensatory award made as the Tribunal considered it not just and equitable, finding the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed one week later with no payment due in that period because of his refusal to work during his notice period. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for unlawful deduction of wages / notice pay not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Breach of s.1 ERA 1996 (failure to provide written statement of particulars of employment) at the date of commencement of proceedings; Respondent ordered to pay minimum award of two weeks' pay (£833.60) under s.38(3) Employment Act 2002. | Upheld | — | £834 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,459
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.163 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.122(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.1 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.38(3) Employment Act 2002
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.