Marielle Brouwer v Peter Radelat, t/a PR Employment Law Specialists — 2023

Mrs Brouwer was employed by Mr Radelat, trading as PR Employment Law Specialists, from 5 September 2011 until 22 August 2021. The tribunal found that she never received a full written statement of particulars of employment, only an offer letter dated 6 July 2011, and held that this did not satisfy section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That complaint was therefore well founded.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that, in May and June 2021, Mr Radelat told her he did not know when he would be able to work again because of his back condition, instructed her to cancel contracts needed for the business, and discussed reducing her hours or making her redundant. The judge found that the business was effectively closed at the relevant time, including because FCA authorisation and professional indemnity insurance were cancelled and the website later stated that the firm was temporarily closed. On that evidence, the tribunal held that the claimant did not resign and that there was no mutual agreement to end employment.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant was dismissed by the respondent on 18 June 2021 when the notice period was agreed, and that the reason was redundancy because the business was ceasing to trade and there was no guarantee that it would restart. The unfair dismissal claim was upheld because no dismissal reason or fair procedure was provided before the notice period. The unlawful deduction from wages claim was withdrawn at the hearing. Remedy was not determined in this judgment; the tribunal said the parties would be notified of a remedy hearing.