Case 4123073/2018 · Employment Tribunal
A Kemp (sitting alone) Mr R Clark v Represented by: Ms S Ramsay Solicitor MacItalia Travel Limited and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 4123073/2018
- Decision date
- 5 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
3 namedClaimant
A Kemp (sitting alone) Mr R Clark
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Ross Clark was employed by MacItalia Travel Limited from April 1995 as a manager. He was dismissed by email on 1 December 2017, the email referring to present financial pressures. The tribunal found that the First Respondent was in severe financial difficulty, had ceased to trade on or around 1 December 2017, and had dismissed both of its employees on that date.
The tribunal held that the dismissal was by reason of redundancy because the employer had ceased to carry on the business for which the Claimant was employed. It found that the Claimant had sent a written notice in accordance with section 164(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was therefore entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal noted that there was no evidence that the First Respondent was insolvent as defined in section 166, but found that the Claimant had taken all reasonable steps to recover payment from the Second Respondent before presenting the claim.
Using the Claimant's age of 46 at termination, 22 years of continuous service, and gross annual salary of £29,652, the tribunal calculated the statutory redundancy payment under section 162 of the 1996 Act at £11,002.50. That sum was awarded and was payable in the first instance by the First Respondent. No order was made against the Second Respondent at this stage, and the claim against it was sisted for two months so that an application for payment could be considered if the First Respondent did not pay.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal awarded a statutory redundancy payment against the First Respondent. The claim against the Second Respondent was sisted for two months and was not finally determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | £11,003 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £11,003
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.136 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.139 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.162 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.164(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.166 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.170(2) Employment Rights Act 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.