In person For the v K3 Business Technologies Ltd (in administration) — 2021

Employment Judge Britton held a closed telephone preliminary hearing and revoked the judgment issued on 21 August 2020. The tribunal found that earlier judgment had been made in error and was a nullity because the respondent company had entered administration on 21 April 2020, the proceedings should not have continued without the consent of the administrators or leave of the court, and the pleadings had not been dealt with on that basis.

The judge recorded that the claimant had originally presented claims arising from her dismissal on 24 April 2020 following the respondent's administration. She had claimed outstanding wages, outstanding holiday pay, what she had described as 45 days of redundancy pay, and had also ticked unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim was not being pursued and recorded that, in any event, she lacked the necessary two years' qualifying service.

The tribunal clarified that the claims proceeding were for non-payment of wages, including outstanding holiday pay, and for a protective award under sections 188 to 190 of TULRCA. The judge recorded that there had been over 150 redundancies, that the claimant understood her reference to 45 days to relate to the consultation period, and that this was not a redundancy payment claim. The tribunal further recorded that no trade union or employee representatives appeared to have been involved and that the claimant could pursue a protective award claim herself. The judgment states that such a claim would start at 90 days' pay, subject to any reduction shown by the respondent, but no final determination on liability or remedy was made.

The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had received payment from the Insolvency Fund under section 184 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and might still have a balance due from the respondent, which she was to clarify. The orders directed that the claim, judgment and reasons be sent to the administrators, that they confirm whether they consented to the proceedings and whether the respondent wished to defend, and that the Secretary of State be served as an interested party. The tribunal reserved the future conduct of the case pending those steps.