Case 4111754/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Forth Care Ltd (in Liquidation) and Prism Trading Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 4111754/2021
- Decision date
- 14 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal issued a Rule 21 judgment because the respondent failed to enter a response within the time required. The claim form had been sent on 25 October 2021, and the respondent did not respond. The tribunal therefore determined liability on the available material without a hearing, but it did not determine remedy at that stage.
The tribunal held that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, redundancy pay, holiday pay, arrears of pay, and notice pay all succeeded. The second respondent was removed from the proceedings.
By the date of judgment, the first respondent had been placed into creditors' voluntary liquidation on 16 May 2022. The liquidators indicated that they had no intention of entering the proceedings and that there were no funds in the liquidation to satisfy the claims. The Employment Judge recorded that remedy would be determined by an Employment Judge at a hearing if required.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Protective award under section 189 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this as arrears of pay. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this as notice pay. | Upheld | — | — |
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.