Case 3303490/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Connolly v Unipools Limited and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 3303490/2025
- Decision date
- 25 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr C Connolly
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Connolly's employment with Unipools Limited ended on 30 March 2025 when the company ceased trading. The tribunal recorded that his employment began on 26 March 1997 and that his gross salary was £1,686.65 per month, equivalent to £389.23 per week. It found unauthorised deductions from his March 2025 wages and ordered the company to pay £1,686.65 gross, subject to tax and National Insurance.
The tribunal also found that Mr Connolly was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice. It awarded £4,670.76 gross, calculated as 12 weeks at £389.23 and subject to tax and National Insurance. It found that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £8,173.83 from Unipools Limited, calculated as 21 times his weekly gross salary.
The claim against Leo Kevin Mindel was dismissed, without a reason being stated in the judgment. The judgment gave separate amounts for the three awards against Unipools Limited but did not state a combined total.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages for March 2025. Award against Unipools Limited, gross and subject to tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £1,687 |
| Breach of contract | Dismissal in breach of contract in respect of notice. Award against Unipools Limited, calculated as 12 weeks at £389.23, gross and subject to tax and National Insurance. | Upheld | — | £4,671 |
| Redundancy | Award against Unipools Limited, calculated as 21 times the weekly gross salary of £389.23. | Upheld | — | £8,174 |
| Other | The claim against Leo Kevin Mindel, the Second Respondent, was dismissed. The judgment does not specify its legal basis or explain the dismissal. | 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.