Case 3203961/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Gibson and others v PARC (Essex) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3203961/2022
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Townley Members
- Panel members
- Mr M Wood, Ms G Forrest
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Gibson and others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe 21 lead and linked claimants, employed by PARC (Essex) Limited, were told on 16 June 2022 that the respondent had lost its funding and would cease operations with immediate effect; no formal notice of dismissal or P45s were provided. The respondent initially denied dismissal, asserting that the claimants had chosen to leave, but at the final hearing accepted through its trustee Mr McCann that the workforce had been made redundant due to the respondent ceasing to operate, and did not challenge the claimants' entitlement to, or the figures for, redundancy pay, unpaid wages, holiday pay, pay in lieu of notice and related claims.
For the lead claimant Miss N Gibson (case 3203961/2022), the tribunal upheld claims for unfair dismissal, a statutory redundancy payment, a protective award for failure to consult, unpaid wages, holiday pay and pay in lieu of notice. The basic award was assessed at £0 after offset against the redundancy payment, and the compensatory award reflected loss of statutory rights with a 5% uplift under s.124 ERA for failure to follow the ACAS Codes of Practice and for failure to provide a final wage slip. No separate award was made for breach of contract, those losses being absorbed within the other heads.
The total sum awarded to Miss Gibson was £8,032.42. The tribunal recorded that, as the dismissals followed the respondent's cessation of operations, no loss of earnings beyond 16 June 2022 was recoverable. The tribunal expressed the hope that the judgment would provide a basis for claimants to seek redress through the appropriate government agencies, noting the respondent's stated intention to enter voluntary liquidation.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Compensatory element only (£0 basic + £0 prescribed + £634.20 non-prescribed loss of statutory rights / pension uplift). Tribunal applied 5% ACAS uplift under s.124 ERA for failure to follow ACAS Codes of Practice. | Upheld | — | £634 |
| Redundancy | Calculated as 5 weeks x £356.25 gross weekly wage using the statutory redundancy calculator. Respondent accepted entire workforce had been made redundant due to loss of funding. | Upheld | — | £1,069 |
| Other | Protective award for failure to consult under s.189 TULR(C)A — equivalent to one week's pay for each week of the 12-week protected period. No specific §4.4 claim_type for protective awards, so mapped to 'other'. | Upheld | — | £2,054 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Four weeks unpaid wages (mid-May to mid-June 2022) at gross weekly rate of £356.25. Respondent accepted no wages had been paid for this period before ceasing operations on 16 June 2022. | Upheld | — | £1,425 |
| Holiday pay | Awarded on the basis of information supplied by the claimant. No holiday pay was awarded beyond 16 June 2022 because the respondent had ceased to operate. | Upheld | — | £1,069 |
| Breach of contract | Pay in lieu of notice: £1,781.25. The judgment records that 'no separate award' for breach of contract is made because the heads of loss recoverable under breach of contract (notice, holiday, wages) are dealt with under those specific heads. Notice pay therefore allocated here. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,032
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £634
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.124 ERA 1996
- s.12A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- ACAS Codes of Practice
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.
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.