Case 3305577/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D. Gosling v Secretary of State for Business & Trade and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305577/2023
- Decision date
- 5 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill KC
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D. Gosling
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that at the times relevant to the proceedings the Claimant worked for the Second Respondent, Smartuki Motorsport Limited (now dissolved), under a contract of employment within the meaning of section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The First Respondent, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, confirmed it did not rely on any limitation defence.
On that basis, the Tribunal ordered the First Respondent to make payments to the Claimant comprising a redundancy payment of £6,461.56, unpaid wages of £3,692.32, a payment in lieu of annual leave of £707.09, and statutory notice pay of £5,076.94. Items (ii) to (iv) were stated as gross figures from which the First Respondent may deduct national insurance or tax as appropriate.
Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing; written reasons would only be provided on request within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment of £6,461.56 ordered against the First Respondent (Secretary of State) following the insolvency/dissolution of the Second Respondent employer. | Upheld | — | £6,462 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages of £3,692.32 (gross) ordered. | Upheld | — | £3,692 |
| Holiday pay | Payment in lieu of annual leave of £707.09 (gross) ordered. | Upheld | — | £707 |
| Breach of contract | Statutory notice pay of £5,076.94 (gross) ordered. | Upheld | — | £5,077 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,938
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.