Case 3314849/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. K MacLennan, lay representative For v Mr P Wiffin T/a Live and Let Live — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314849/2021
- Decision date
- 14 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Douse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. K MacLennan, lay representative For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Douse found that Mr Fairclough had worked for Mr Wiffin from 26 July 2003, latterly as a public house manager. The tribunal accepted that from February 2011 he worked 40 hours per week, was paid £795 per month with £295 treated as accommodation costs, and was furloughed from March 2020 on £636 per month. It found that he was told on 19 February 2021 that his employment would end because the business was closing, with written confirmation not handed to him until 6 April 2021 when he left the accommodation.
The tribunal was just persuaded that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to be presented in time and that it was brought within a reasonable period after the deadline. Unfair dismissal failed because the claimant accepted redundancy was the reason for dismissal, closure of the business was the sole reason, and, given that the pub was closing, he was the only employee, and no alternative work was available, the respondent acted reasonably under s.98(4) ERA 1996.
The separate redundancy/notice pay claim succeeded. The remedy judgment later ordered £3,211.62 gross as payment in lieu of notice after deducting furlough payments received between 19 February and 6 April 2021. The wages claim partially succeeded: deductions before 29 August 2019 were dismissed as time-barred, but the tribunal upheld the National Minimum Wage shortfall claim from 29 August 2019 to 18 February 2021 and awarded £12,998.37 gross, taking the accommodation offset into account. The holiday pay claim also partially succeeded: earlier periods were time-barred, the tribunal rejected the assertion that the claimant had been prevented from taking his full 28 days from 29 August 2019, but held that he was entitled to pay in lieu of accrued and untaken leave during furlough from 1 April 2020 to 18 February 2021, awarding £1,726.56 gross.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on the merits; the claimant accepted redundancy was the reason for dismissal and the tribunal found closure of the business was the sole reason, with no selection exercise or alternative work available. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim described as redundancy payment/notice pay succeeded. The remedy judgment quantified the award as £3,211.62 gross as payment in lieu of notice after deducting furlough payments received between 19 February and 6 April 2021. | Upheld | — | £3,212 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Partially succeeded. Deductions claimed for 26 July 2003 to 28 August 2019 were dismissed as time-barred, but the National Minimum Wage shortfall claim from 29 August 2019 to 18 February 2021 succeeded and was later quantified at £12,998.37 gross. | Upheld | — | £12,998 |
| Holiday pay | Partially succeeded. Holiday pay claims before 29 August 2019 were dismissed as time-barred; the tribunal rejected the case that the claimant had been prevented from taking his full 28 days from 29 August 2019, but held that he was entitled to pay in lieu of accrued and untaken leave during furlough from 1 April 2020 to 18 February 2021, awarded at £1,726.56 gross. | Upheld | — | £1,727 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,937
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98(2)(b) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- ERA section 13
- s.23 ERA 1996 / Deduction from Wages (Limitation) Regulations 2014
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.