Case 3312444/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Gerber v Honeypot Group Ltd Barnet Football Club Academy Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312444/2020
- Decision date
- 24 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Gerber
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent as an Academy Administrator from 23 November 2017. After Barnet FC's relegation and the later loss of promotion prospects, the Respondent wrote on 17 March 2020 giving notice of termination on 29 April 2020. Subsequent March and April 2020 communications placed staff on furlough and referred to the possibility of an alternative college programme, and the tribunal accepted the Claimant's evidence that he understood his redundancy notice had been withdrawn.
Applying an objective reading of the communications and the fact that the Claimant remained employed and paid beyond both 29 April 2020 and 17 June 2020, the tribunal found that the Respondent had impliedly withdrawn the 17 March 2020 notice. The 5 August 2020 letter therefore amounted to a dismissal without notice, and the Claimant succeeded in his notice pay claim in the sum of £3,644.94 net. He also succeeded on unlawful deduction of wages in the sum of £226.31 net, reflecting the shortfall between the dismissal date and the last date for which he was paid.
The redundancy payment claim was dismissed on withdrawal after it was agreed that £692.30 had been paid in October 2020. The holiday pay claim was dismissed because 17 days of leave due at 30 June 2020 had been paid at 100% in the July payroll in accordance with the contract and the CJRS. The unfair dismissal claim succeeded because redundancy was a potentially fair reason, but no consultation had taken place and the tribunal was not satisfied it was reasonable to dispense with consultation at that stage, given the evidence that there may have been reasonable alternative employment within a replacement academy structure. No basic award or compensatory award was made, because the Claimant had already received a redundancy payment and the tribunal found no additional loss beyond notice pay. The total amount owed was £3,871.25.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Dismissed on withdrawal after it was agreed that a redundancy payment of £692.30 had been paid in October 2020. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that 17 days' annual leave due at 30 June 2020 had been paid at 100% in the July payroll in line with the contract and the CJRS. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the 17 March 2020 notice had been impliedly withdrawn by the subsequent furlough communications and continued employment, so the 5 August 2020 letter wrongfully dismissed the Claimant without notice. | Upheld | — | £3,645 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Award for the shortfall in pay between the dismissal date and the last date for which the Claimant was paid, 25 July 2020. | Upheld | — | £226 |
| Unfair dismissal | Redundancy was a fair reason, but there was no consultation. The tribunal was not satisfied it was reasonable to dispense with consultation because there appeared to be possible alternative employment within a replacement academy structure. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,871
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £0
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £0
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.