Case 3321200/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Christopher Harding v Halls Distribution Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) Heard — 2022
- Case reference
- 3321200/2021
- Decision date
- 27 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Saward
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Christopher Harding
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Harding worked for Halls Distribution Ltd as a driver of 7.5 tonne vehicles from 6 April 2014 until his employment ended on 10 August 2021. He had been suspended on full pay after a road traffic accident on or about 5 May 2021. The claimant said the insurer point relied on by the respondent was false; the respondent later went into voluntary liquidation and did not attend the hearing.
Because the respondent had filed no response and did not appear, the tribunal proceeded in its absence under Rule 47 and heard live evidence from the claimant. It accepted the claimant's account and held that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and succeeded. The tribunal's reasons refer to sections 94, 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also held that the claimant's notice-pay claim succeeded and that the holiday-pay claim succeeded. It recorded that the claimant believed his contract provided for four weeks' notice, that he received no payment in lieu of notice, and that he had accrued but untaken holiday at the end of his employment for which he was not paid. The redundancy pay claim was withdrawn by consent. No schedule of loss had been provided, so remedy was left to a further hearing listed for 4 January 2023.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claimant withdrew the redundancy pay claim by consent during the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent filed no response and did not attend. The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence and found the dismissal unfair. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant succeeded on the notice-pay issue because he had not been paid in lieu of notice on termination. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant had accrued but untaken holiday at the date of dismissal and had not been paid for it. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- ss.221-224 ERA 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.