Case 8000252/2025 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) Judgment of the Tribunal in Case No: 8000252/2025; Issued Following Final Hearing, on Liability only, held on the Cloud Based Video Platform on August 2025 at 10.15 am Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr A Patrick
Andrew Patrick was employed by Chamblah Ltd, trading as Bathgate Massage Clinic, from 19 September 2019 until 2 September 2024 as a sports therapist on a 26-hour week at £15 per hour. He was summarily dismissed by email on 2 September 2024 for redundancy. On the evidence heard from the claimant and Ms Sally Chamness, the tribunal found that, as at the effective date of termination, he was 49 years old, had 4 complete years of service, and had accrued statutory entitlements relating to redundancy, unpaid wages, and untaken annual leave.
The tribunal found that Chamblah Ltd had failed to pay the claimant wages for August 2024 and for 1 and 2 September 2024, amounting to an unauthorised deduction from wages under section 13 ERA 1996. It also found that he had accrued 12.25 days of paid annual leave that remained untaken at the date of termination. Separately, it found that he had an entitlement in law to a statutory redundancy payment under sections 135 and 138 ERA 1996. The tribunal recorded that Chamblah Ltd ceased trading on 31 August 2024, was struck off and dissolved on 19 November 2024, and was not insolvent within the statutory definition, although it was described as "vergens ad inopiam".
Because Chamblah Ltd had been dissolved, the tribunal said it lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment against the company in respect of the claimant's redundancy, wages, and holiday pay claims unless the company was restored to the Register. The current proceedings were sisted for 6 months to allow the claimant, if he wished, to seek restoration, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade was invited to reconsider the claims in light of the findings. The claimant's claim against the Secretary of State for compensation for having been "treated unfairly" was dismissed for want of title to sue.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found that the claimant was entitled in law to a statutory redundancy payment under sections 135 and 138 ERA 1996, but it also held that, because Chamblah Ltd had been dissolved on 19 November 2024, it lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment against the company absent restoration to the Register. The proceedings were sisted for 6 months. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found that Chamblah Ltd had made an unauthorised deduction from wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996 in respect of unpaid wages for August 2024 and for 1 and 2 September 2024, but it did not enter a monetary judgment because of the jurisdiction issue arising from the company's dissolution. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found that the claimant had accrued 12.25 days of untaken paid annual leave and was entitled in law to compensation for that entitlement, but it did not enter a monetary judgment because the company was dissolved and restoration would be required before judgment could be entered. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's claim insofar as directed against the Secretary of State for Business and Trade for compensation for having been 'treated unfairly' was dismissed for want of title to sue. | Dismissed | — | — |
The 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.
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.