Mr G S Smith v Inseagan House Hotel Ltd T/a Inseagan — 2021

At the preliminary hearing on 29 January 2021, Mr Smith confirmed that he was only pursuing a claim for statutory redundancy pay. He agreed that the notice pay element of the breach of contract claim and the holiday pay claim should be treated as withdrawn, and the tribunal dismissed both claims under Rule 52.

The respondent accepted that Mr Smith had been dismissed by reason of redundancy, but said it was withholding statutory redundancy pay because it alleged an overpayment and relied on s14 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judge said that was difficult to follow because statutory redundancy pay is not wages for the purposes of Part 2 ERA and is covered by Part 11 ERA, so he could not see the basis on which the payment could be withheld on the facts described.

The judge said he was considering, on his own motion, striking out the response under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. He gave the respondent 14 days to set out the legal basis for withholding the redundancy payment and to explain why the response should not be struck out, with 7 days thereafter for the claimant to comment. A further telephone preliminary hearing was listed for 26 February 2021.