Case 3300667/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Seychell Engineering and Fabrication Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300667/2022
- Decision date
- 23 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants presented claims in January 2022, but only Mr Alfoadari gave any details. He said he had been employed from September to December 2021 and the claim form referred to unfair dismissal, a redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay, failure to consult, and sums said to be due for wages and related losses. No response was received from the respondent, which was in creditors voluntary liquidation.
On 31 January 2023 EJ Talbot-Ponsonby ordered a one-day hearing to consider unfair dismissal, length of service and redundancy payment, and required the claimants to provide information about unpaid wages, holiday pay and notice pay by 7 February 2023. No-one attended the hearing. The tribunal telephoned Mr Alfoadari on the morning of the hearing, and he said that neither he nor Miss Halsey would attend; the tribunal had no telephone contact details for Mrs Wise.
The tribunal held that it could not make an award for unfair dismissal or redundancy payment because Mr Alfoadari was the only claimant who had given service dates and those dates did not show more than two years' service. It also said that if the claim for failure to consult was intended as a protective award claim, there was no indication that 20 or more people had been made redundant, so that claim could not succeed.
The claims in respect of unpaid wages, notice pay and holiday pay were also dismissed. The claimants had been required to provide information about those claims but did not do so, and the tribunal said there was no basis on which it could make an award.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that Mr Alfoadari was the only claimant who gave dates of service and that he did not have two years' service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that a redundancy payment could not be awarded because the relevant claimant did not have more than two years' service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim described as failure to consult. The tribunal said there was no indication that 20 or more people had been made redundant, so a protective award could not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claims for unpaid wages were dismissed because the claimants had been ordered to provide information but did not do so, so there was no basis for an award. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was dismissed because the claimants did not provide the information ordered by the tribunal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for holiday pay was dismissed because the claimants did not provide the information ordered by the tribunal. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.