Case 6004080/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Adach v Just 3 Architectural Aluminium Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 6004080/2024
- Decision date
- 7 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Musgrave-Cohen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Adach
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an estimator employed from 2 September 2019 to 23 May 2024, brought claims after the respondent failed to file an ET3 and did not attend the final hearing. The tribunal proceeded under rules 21 and 47, accepted the claimant's documentary evidence and oral evidence, and found that the respondent had not paid wages from 1 April 2024 onwards. It also accepted that the office had been closed and emptied in late April 2024, that the claimant had tried repeatedly to obtain payment and to raise a grievance, and that he resigned on 23 May 2024 in response to the non-payment of wages.
On the constructive unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the failure to pay wages was a fundamental breach of contract, that the claimant resigned in response to that breach, and that he had not delayed too long before resigning. The claim succeeded. The tribunal awarded a basic award only, calculating it by reference to four years' service and the statutory weekly pay cap of £700, which produced a basic award of £2,800. The claimant did not seek a compensatory award because he obtained new employment on 28 May 2024.
The tribunal also upheld the unlawful deduction from wages claim for unpaid salary between 1 April 2024 and 23 May 2024, awarding £7,307.70 gross, and upheld the holiday pay claim, awarding £2,211.56 gross for 11.5 days of accrued but untaken leave. The separate breach of contract claim for notice pay failed because the claimant resigned without notice and did not seek notice pay in his resignation letter.
The tribunal found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to engage with the claimant's grievance and the attempts to resolve the pay dispute, and it increased the awards by 25% under the ACAS Code of Practice, producing an uplift of £3,079.82. The total sum ordered was £15,399.08. The judgment also recorded that the respondent was later shown as being in voluntary liquidation and noted that any amounts not recovered from the National Insurance Fund remained due from the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal succeeded. The tribunal made a basic award only and noted that no compensatory award was sought. | Upheld | — | £2,800 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid salary for 1 April 2024 to 23 May 2024. | Upheld | — | £7,308 |
| Holiday pay | Accrued but untaken holiday pay on termination, assessed at 11.5 days. | Upheld | — | £2,212 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim failed because the claimant resigned without notice and did not seek notice pay in his resignation letter. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,399
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,800
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- fundamental breach of contract
- resignation in response to the breach
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- Regulation 3, Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- s.207A TULR(C)A 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2015)
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.