Case 6013547/2024 · Employment Tribunal
A Barsony v Firefly Holdings (Manchester) Ltd (“in voluntary liquidation”) — 2024
- Case reference
- 6013547/2024
- Decision date
- 31 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Barsony
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 19 December 2024 Employment Judge Leach entered a Rule 21 judgment in favour of A Barsony against Firefly Holdings (Manchester) Ltd, described as being in voluntary liquidation. The hearing listed for 12 March 2025 was cancelled. The tribunal found that the claimant had been dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and ordered the respondent to pay £2,179.53, calculated as 3 weeks' statutory notice pay at £726.51 per week.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had been dismissed by reason of redundancy and was entitled to a redundancy payment of £2,100.00. It further found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered payment of £1,089.77, calculated as 7.5 days at £145.30 per day. The judgment was sent to the parties on 31 December 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment found the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract in respect of notice and awarded 3 weeks' statutory notice pay. | Upheld | — | £2,180 |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and entitled to a redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £2,100 |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to unpaid holiday entitlement; classified here as holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £1,090 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,369
- across all upheld claims
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.