Case 2502520/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Charlton v Short Richardson and Forth Limited In Voluntary Liquidation — 2023
- Case reference
- 2502520/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Arullendran Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Charlton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal entered judgment under Rule 21 because the respondent did not file a response and the liquidator had stated that the claim would not be defended. It found that the respondent proposed to dismiss 20 or more employees as redundant and that there had been no proper warning or consultation with a recognised trade union, the claimant, or elected employee representatives between 5 September 2022 and 30 September 2022.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the respondent had breached section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and made a protective award for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 30 September 2022. The judgment also recorded that the recoupment regulations applied to that award.
The tribunal dismissed the holiday pay claim because it accepted the Insolvency Service calculation that 3.86 days were due and found no evidence supporting the claimant's assertion that 6 days were owed. It upheld the wrongful dismissal claim because the claimant was dismissed without notice, but found that she was entitled to one week's notice rather than three months and, after crediting the Redundancy Payment Services payment already made, awarded £37.70 net. No award was made for pension contributions because that matter was being dealt with by Clumber Consultancy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Protective award claim under sections 188 and 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The tribunal awarded remuneration for a 90-day protected period from 30 September 2022, but did not state a monetary total. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for accrued and outstanding holiday pay under Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1996 was dismissed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant was entitled to more than the 3.86 days already paid through the Redundancy Payment Services. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to one week's notice only, gave credit for the Redundancy Payment Services payment already received, and awarded £37.70 net notice pay. | Upheld | — | £38 |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1996
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.