Ms L Anderson v Fueltone Limited (In Liquidation) — 2026

Ms L Anderson worked for Fueltone Limited from 7 October 2019 as an administration manager. On 19 December 2024 she was told by Charlene Currie that the company would be going into administration or liquidation and that trading would cease with immediate effect. She was also told not to come into the office after the Christmas break. The tribunal accepted her evidence as credible and reliable, and noted that she had not lodged her claim within the ordinary time period but that redundancy payment claims are subject to the statutory regime in the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The central issue was whether there had been a termination of employment and, in particular, whether the claimant had resigned. The tribunal recorded that no specific date of termination was communicated when she was told not to return to work. It also found that she later took part-time work with Enerion, while believing she might be able to continue with Fueltone if a buyer was found. The claimant repeatedly said that she had not resigned, either orally or in writing, and the tribunal accepted that evidence.

The tribunal nevertheless concluded that the claimant’s request for a P45, together with the P45 showing a leaving date of 17 January 2025, meant that her conduct had to be treated as a resignation. It relied on the statutory provisions governing redundancy payments, including sections 135, 163 and 164 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and on the authorities cited in the reasons, including Bates v Brit European Transport Ltd, Edwards v Surrey Police and Johnston v Monty Smith Garages Ltd. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant resigned from her employment on 17 January 2025 and was not entitled to a redundancy payment, so the claim was dismissed.