Mr Jatinkumar Parekh (C1) Mr Rama Krishna Nuna (C2) v PH Leicester Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2025

C1 and C2 were employed as delivery drivers by R1 (PH Leicester Ltd), which ceased trading in April 2023 and went into administration in September 2023. Neither claimant was given notice or formal confirmation of dismissal at the time, and neither respondent attended the reserved hearing on 19 February 2025; R2 had its ET3 and Grounds of Resistance treated as written submissions under Rule 42. The Tribunal permitted both claimants to amend their claims to include unfair dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the dismissals were by reason of redundancy but that R1 had not adequately warned or consulted the claimants, had not considered a selection pool or suitable alternative employment, and that the dismissals fell outside the range of reasonable responses; both unfair dismissal claims therefore succeeded. C1's claim for unpaid wages and notice pay succeeded, as did C2's claims for unpaid wages, holiday pay and notice pay. C1's holiday pay claim and both claimants' breach of contract claims for unpaid expenses failed for lack of a contractual term and lack of evidence to quantify the loss. C1 was also awarded compensation under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for R1's failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars, at the maximum four weeks' pay.

On the redundancy point, the Tribunal held under s.164(2) ERA that it was just and equitable for C1 to retain his right to a redundancy payment from the Redundancy Payments Service, his earlier RPS claim having been refused as out of time. C2's basic award was extinguished by the statutory redundancy payment already made by the RPS, and the awards for C2's unpaid wages and notice pay are to be reduced by the corresponding payments already made by the RPS. The judgment notes that where R1 is insolvent or fails to pay, further compensation may be available from the Redundancy Payments Service.