Case 4113033/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hay v RABC Spirit Trading Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 4113033/2018
- Decision date
- 11 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hoey
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had been employed for about 10 years at the respondent's Glasgow pub and was paid £10 per hour. The tribunal found, using the P60 figures, that his average weekly pay was £250. It accepted that he was told on 19 April 2018 that the establishment would close on 22 April 2018, that 22 April 2018 was his last day of employment, and that the business ceased trading on that date. It also found that he had no written particulars or payslips, that he had taken 1 week of holiday in the 2017/2018 leave year, and that he had received only 3 days' notice.
The tribunal first considered the timing of the notice pay and holiday pay claims. It found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present those claims within the ordinary tribunal time limit because he did not know there was a shorter limit for those claims, was pursuing payment from the director, ACAS and the Insolvency Service, and acted promptly once the Secretary of State refused the claim. The tribunal referred to the reasonably practicable test and to Porter v Bandridge and Palmer v Southend. It then noted that, under section 188 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the claims were in time in any event because the Secretary of State's decision was communicated on 30 July 2018 and the tribunal claim was lodged on 31 July 2018.
On redundancy, the tribunal held that a redundancy situation existed because the respondent had ceased trading and there was no further work after 22 April 2018. It found that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and was therefore entitled to a redundancy payment. Applying a weekly rate of £250, 9 complete years of service and the statutory multiplier for his age, it awarded £3,375. It also awarded £2,143.15 for notice pay, calculated as 9 weeks' notice less 3 days already received, and £1,150 for accrued holiday pay, based on 4.6 weeks outstanding. The judgment's formal disposal records those three sums as due to the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the respondent ceased trading on 22 April 2018 and that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The reasons section contains an arithmetical line at £3,375.25, but the formal disposal and summary state £3,375.00; that figure is used here. | Upheld | — | £3,375 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay was treated as due under the Insolvency Act 1986 regime. The tribunal also held the claim was in time under section 188 because the Secretary of State's refusal was communicated on 30 July 2018 and the Employment Tribunal claim was lodged on 31 July 2018. | Upheld | — | £2,143 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued holiday pay was assessed at 4.6 weeks outstanding at the claimant's weekly rate of £250. The tribunal also held the claim was in time under section 188 because the Secretary of State's refusal was communicated on 30 July 2018 and the Employment Tribunal claim was lodged on 31 July 2018. | Upheld | — | £1,150 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,668
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
8 references- reasonably practicable test
- Porter v Bandridge
- Palmer v Southend
- s.135/s.139 ERA 1996 redundancy
- s.162 ERA 1996 redundancy calculation
- s.86 ERA 1996 notice
- regs 13 and 13A Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.182-s.188 Insolvency Act 1986
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.