Case 3200491/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ashley Payne v Stock Sourcing Wholesale Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200491/2023
- Decision date
- 17 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Ashley Payne
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Mr Ashley Payne was an employee of Stock Sourcing Wholesale Ltd within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that he was entitled to any payments from the Secretary of State for Business and Trade under sections 166 and 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claims against Stock Sourcing Wholesale Ltd for unpaid redundancy pay, unpaid notice pay, unpaid holiday pay and unpaid wages were found well-founded and upheld. The claim that the Secretary of State was liable to make payments to the claimant under sections 166 and 182 was also found well-founded and upheld. No monetary award or breakdown is stated in the judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim for unpaid redundancy pay against the first respondent was found well-founded and upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as unpaid notice pay against the first respondent; no separate monetary figure is given. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for unpaid holiday pay against the first respondent was found well-founded and upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unpaid wages against the first respondent was found well-founded and upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's claim that the Secretary of State was liable to make payments under sections 166 and 182 Employment Rights Act 1996 was found well-founded and upheld. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 166 and 182 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.