Claimant v PH Leicester Ltd (in administration)

R1 dismissed C1 and C2 by reason of redundancy when the business closed. However, R1 failed to warn or consult with the claimants, gave no notice, and took no steps to find alternative employment. The dismissals were procedurally unfair. However, had proper procedure been followed, dismissal would have occurred anyway (100% Polkey reduction).

C1's claim to the Redundancy Payments Service was initially rejected as out of time. The Tribunal found it just and equitable for C1 to retain his right to redundancy payment under s.164(2) ERA given the lack of timely information from the administrator and C1 being abroad. C2 had already received statutory redundancy payment from the Redundancy Payments Service.

Both claimants received payslips for March and April 2023 but were never paid the wages stated on those payslips. There was no evidence the deductions were authorised. C1 awarded £534.83 gross; C2 awarded £1106.28 gross (subject to offset for payments already received from Redundancy Payments Service).

C1's claim failed because his April 2023 payslip showed no holiday pay due. C2's claim succeeded as his payslip showed 7 hours of holiday pay (£66.50 gross) which was never paid, and there was no evidence this deduction was authorised.

Both claimants claimed unpaid mileage/expenses. However, there was no contractual term in C2's contract relating to expenses, and no contract at all for C1. The arrangement was informal. Additionally, there was no reliable evidence to quantify the claim (only estimates). Both claims for expenses failed.

Both claimants were entitled to statutory notice under s.86 ERA (C1: 2 weeks; C2: 7 weeks). Neither was given notice or paid notice pay. There was no evidence of gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. C1 awarded £281.78 net (including 25% uplift for failure to follow procedures); C2 awarded £907.81 net (subject to offset for payments already received from Redundancy Payments Service).