Case 3300651/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Hudson Mrs A Langley Mrs D Barber v Stoneleigh Dental Practice Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300651/2023
- Decision date
- 7 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Hudson Mrs A Langley Mrs D Barber
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent was a dental practice that had ceased trading and entered voluntary liquidation. Mrs Hudson and Mrs Langley were employed respectively as a head dental nurse and a dental practice manager. The tribunal found that both claimants were dismissed on 25 July 2022 when they were informed that the business had ceased trading and that neither had been given notice. Mrs Barber's claim was adjourned and relisted because she did not attend the hearing.
On redundancy, the tribunal found there was a redundancy situation and accepted the respondent's letter of 25 July 2022 stating that the business had closed permanently. Mrs Hudson's redundancy payment claim was in time or, if not, time should be extended on a just and equitable basis because she had pursued the matter with Mr Bhatia, had been assured payment would be made, and filed her ET1 once it became clear that payment was unlikely. Mrs Langley's redundancy claim was also allowed out of time on the same basis, the tribunal noting that her ET1 was filed 13 days after the initial six-month period but within the further six months allowed by section 164 ERA 1996.
The tribunal awarded Mrs Hudson £5,382 for redundancy payment, calculated as 12 years' service at £299 per week with the 1.5 multiplier. It awarded Mrs Langley £15,460.50, calculated on the capped 20 years of service at £515.35 per week with the same multiplier. For notice pay and holiday pay, the tribunal held the claims were out of time under article 7 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 and regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, but extended time because it was not reasonably practicable for either claimant to bring the claims within time given the way the redundancies were handled and the assurances that payment would be made.
Mrs Hudson was awarded £3,588 for notice pay, being 12 weeks at £299 per week, and £225.93 for two days of accrued but untaken holiday. Mrs Langley was awarded £6,184.20 for notice pay, being 12 weeks at £515.35 per week, and £439.04 for 3.5 days of accrued but untaken holiday. The tribunal recorded the holiday sums as subject to statutory deductions. The combined monetary awards in the judgment total £31,279.67.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Mrs Hudson: redundancy payment awarded at 12 years' service x £299 weekly pay x 1.5. | Upheld | — | £5,382 |
| Breach of contract | Mrs Hudson: notice pay awarded as damages for breach of contract, calculated at 12 weeks x £299. | Upheld | — | £3,588 |
| Holiday pay | Mrs Hudson: accrued but untaken holiday pay, subject to statutory deductions. | Upheld | — | £226 |
| Redundancy | Mrs Langley: redundancy payment awarded using the capped 20-year period x £515.35 weekly pay x 1.5. | Upheld | — | £15,461 |
| Breach of contract | Mrs Langley: notice pay awarded as damages for breach of contract, calculated at 12 weeks x £515.35. | Upheld | — | £6,184 |
| Holiday pay | Mrs Langley: accrued but untaken holiday pay, subject to statutory deductions. | Upheld | — | £439 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £31,280
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.155 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.162 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.164 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 7 Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
- regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998
- not reasonably practicable
- just and equitable to extend time
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.