Case 2502770/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Jamie Thompson; (2) Mark James & (3) Matthew Hewitt First v Composite Fibreglass Mouldings Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2502770/2023
- Decision date
- 11 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Legard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Jamie Thompson; (2) Mark James & (3) Matthew Hewitt First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent did not attend and was unrepresented. The first and second claimants gave evidence by affirmation and the tribunal found their answers clear and truthful. Both had been employed as fibreglass laminators and were dismissed on 20 December 2023, when the owner told them they were dismissed as redundant with immediate effect and without forewarning. Neither received redundancy pay or notice pay, and each was owed three days of untaken holiday. Their gross weekly wage was £470, with net pay of £378.60. The first claimant, Jamie Thompson, started work on 14 June 2017 and was 45 when dismissed; the second claimant, Mark James, started on 1 February 2018 and was 47 when dismissed.
The tribunal held that the first and second claimants' claims for a redundancy payment, notice pay and holiday pay were well founded and succeeded. It calculated the redundancy payments using the statutory formula. In the absence of contracts of employment, notice periods and pay were calculated by reference to s.86 ERA. Holiday pay was calculated under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations.
The first claimant was awarded £6,313.60, made up of £3,760 redundancy payment, £282 holiday pay and £2,271.60 notice pay. The second claimant was awarded £4,616.40, made up of £2,820 redundancy payment, £282 holiday pay and £1,514.40 notice pay. The total awards therefore came to £10,930.40.
The third claimant, Matthew Hewitt, had asked for his claim to be determined in his absence, but the tribunal declined because it needed sworn direct testimony to determine entitlement to a redundancy payment and to confirm his date of birth and dates of employment. The tribunal said he should notify the tribunal if he wished the claim to be determined, and warned that failure to do so might result in strike-out under rule 37(1)(d). It also noted that, because the respondent was insolvent, the claimants may need to apply to the Secretary of State under ss.166/182 ERA for the awards to be met out of the Redundancy Payments Office.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | First claimant, Jamie Thompson. | Upheld | — | £3,760 |
| Holiday pay | First claimant, Jamie Thompson. | Upheld | — | £282 |
| Breach of contract | First claimant, Jamie Thompson; notice pay calculated by reference to s.86 ERA. | Upheld | — | £2,272 |
| Redundancy | Second claimant, Mark James. | Upheld | — | £2,820 |
| Holiday pay | Second claimant, Mark James. | Upheld | — | £282 |
| Breach of contract | Second claimant, Mark James; notice pay calculated by reference to s.86 ERA. | Upheld | — | £1,514 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,930
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- statutory redundancy formula
- s.86 ERA
- regulation 14 WTR
- ss.166/182 ERA
- rule 37(1)(d)
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.