Case 3205503/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Peter Cavill v Keepout Limited (in liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205503/2022
- Decision date
- 22 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Peter Cavill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Peter Cavill was employed by Keepout Limited as a window fabricator and installer from 8 May 2018 to 29 August 2022. The tribunal found that he was paid £3,962 gross per month (£2,933 net) and a gross weekly wage of £914.30. The respondent did not enter a response, did not appear and was not represented.
The tribunal upheld the Claimant's claims for unpaid August 2022 wages, accrued and unpaid holiday pay, redundancy pay and unpaid notice pay. It found that he had not been paid for August 2022 and awarded £3,962 gross. It accepted that he had 0.5 days of holiday outstanding for the relevant leave year and awarded £91.43 gross. It also found that he had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and calculated a redundancy payment of £2,284 using the statutory maximum week's pay of £571 and a multiplier of 4. The notice pay claim succeeded on the basis of a contractual entitlement to four weeks' notice, calculated at £3,657.23 gross.
The unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. The tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair because the Claimant had no warning of, or consultation about, his redundancy and no steps were taken to find alternative employment. In assessing compensation, it found that he was unemployed until mid-December 2022, received no state benefits, and then reasonably mitigated his loss by taking temporary work until 25 January 2023, when he started new permanent employment at a higher wage. It calculated immediate financial loss at £11,732 net for four months, deducted the notice pay already awarded and temporary earnings of £2,750, and assessed the compensatory award at £5,324.77. The basic award was nil because the redundancy payment had already been awarded.
The total payable by the respondent within 14 days was £15,319.43.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Claimant was not paid for August 2022 and was awarded his gross monthly wages for that month. | Upheld | — | £3,962 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found 0.5 days of accrued and unpaid holiday entitlement for the relevant leave year. | Upheld | — | £91 |
| Redundancy | The Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy; the payment was calculated using the statutory cap of £571 on a week's pay and a multiplier of 4. | Upheld | — | £2,284 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal accepted a contractual entitlement to four weeks' notice pay calculated from an annual salary of £47,544. | Upheld | — | £3,657 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because there had been no warning or consultation about redundancy and no steps were taken to find alternative employment. The basic award was nil because the redundancy payment already covered it, and the compensatory award reflected immediate loss after deduction of notice pay and temporary earnings. | Upheld | — | £5,325 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,319
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £5,325
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.