Case 6009564/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sean Keenan v Proper Group AG and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009564/2024
- Decision date
- 27 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Sean Keenan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Sean Keenan was employed by the second respondent, Utopia Accelerate (UK) Limited, and not by the first respondent, Proper Group AG, so all claims against the first respondent were dismissed. It found that he had been continuously employed by the second respondent from 22 January 2022 to 26 August 2024.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed contrary to Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that, had he not been unfairly dismissed, his employment would have ended on 26 November 2024 when the second respondent entered creditors voluntary liquidation. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £1,400, calculated by reference to two years' service and age 38, and a compensatory award of £37,879.34 for 92 days' loss of net salary and cash allowance, grossed up for tax, together with the loss of employer pension contributions.
The redundancy payment claim succeeded, with the tribunal finding that the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. No separate redundancy payment award was made because the basic award had already been awarded under the unfair dismissal claim. The breach of contract claim also succeeded, but the tribunal held that the first 92 days of loss were already covered by the unfair dismissal compensatory award, so no additional notice-pay damages were due. Damages were limited to £3,058.44 for the respondent's failure to make employer pension contributions between 25 March 2024 and 26 August 2024.
The unlawful deduction from wages claim succeeded in relation to unpaid salary and cash allowance for the period 25 March 2024 to 25 August 2024, calculated at £48,833.32. The final order then deducted £6,396.72 received from the Redundancy Payment Service, leaving a net total award of £84,774.38 across the claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had been constructively unfairly dismissed by the second respondent. It awarded a basic award of £1,400 and a compensatory award of £37,879.34, taking the total unfair dismissal award to £39,279.34. The tribunal found that, but for the dismissal, employment would have ended on 26 November 2024 when the second respondent entered creditors voluntary liquidation. | Upheld | — | £39,279 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, but made no separate redundancy payment award because the claimant had already been awarded a basic award for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claim succeeded in two respects: the claimant was entitled to three months' notice and the respondent failed to pay 5% employer pension contributions from 25 March 2024 to 26 August 2024. Because the first 92 days of loss were already included in the unfair dismissal compensatory award, no further notice-pay loss was awarded, and damages were limited to £3,058.44 for unpaid pension contributions. | Upheld | — | £3,058 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that salary and cash allowance were not paid for the period 25 March 2024 to 25 August 2024, and calculated the gross sum as £48,833.32. The final order deducted £6,396.72 received from the Redundancy Payment Service, producing a net award of £42,436.60. The judgment text at paragraph 12 refers to 25 August 2025, but the surrounding findings and order refer to 2024. | Upheld | — | £42,437 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £84,774
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,400
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £37,879
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.