Case 3200398/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L. Lucas v Harp Commercial Interiors Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200398/2023
- Decision date
- 5 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Representation
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal determined that the Claimant was given notice of dismissal by reason of redundancy on 31 October 2022 and that her employment ended on 4 November 2022. It found that the First Respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay for work done during the notice period between 1 and 4 November 2022, and that the Claimant was dismissed in breach of contract because notice pay was not paid.
No further award was made for the unauthorised deduction from wages claim because the Insolvency Service had already paid the Claimant arrears of pay for 1-4 November 2022. For breach of contract, the Tribunal awarded one month's gross pay of £2,560.18, less £361.85 already paid for the four days worked during the notice period and £417.32 already paid for notice pay, resulting in an award of £1,781.01 gross.
The unpaid holiday pay claim was not pursued at the hearing and was dismissed. The Tribunal declined to award an ACAS uplift.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found an unauthorised deduction for wages for 1-4 November 2022, but made no further award because the Insolvency Service had already paid arrears of pay for that period. | Upheld | — | £0 |
| Breach of contract | Award was one month's gross pay less sums already paid by the Insolvency Service for arrears of pay and notice pay. | Upheld | — | £1,781 |
| Holiday pay | The unpaid holiday pay claim was not pursued at the hearing and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,781
- across all upheld claims
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.