Claimant v Richard Language College
Outcome
Individual claims
The Respondent failed to pay the Claimant her salary for March, April, May, and June 2024. There was no written agreement authorising the withholding of wages and no prior written consent. The tribunal found this constituted a series of unauthorised deductions from wages under s.13 ERA 1996.
The Claimant's contract entitled her to 12 weeks' notice. She was dismissed with immediate effect on 27 June 2024 and was not given any notice or paid in lieu of notice, constituting a breach of contract.
The Respondent breached the Claimant's contract by failing to pay her for 21 days of holiday accrued but not taken in 2024 when her employment ended. She was contractually entitled to be paid in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday on termination.
The tribunal was satisfied the dismissal was by reason of redundancy. The dismissal email referred to the company being struck off from Companies House, and the Claimant was aware of the Respondent's financial difficulties. Under s.163(2) ERA there is a presumption of redundancy which was not rebutted.
The Claimant was unfairly dismissed under s.94 ERA. No process was followed in respect of her dismissal, and the Respondent provided no evidence that the decision to dismiss was substantively fair. The Respondent did not attend to defend the claim.
Facts
The Claimant worked for the Respondent, a language college, for nearly 15 years as Client Services Manager. Following the Covid-19 pandemic, the Respondent suffered severe financial difficulties, was evicted from premises, and failed to pay the Claimant's salary from March to June 2024. On 27 June 2024, the Claimant was informed by email that the company was being struck off and she was dismissed with immediate effect. She received no wages, notice pay, holiday pay, or redundancy payment. The Respondent did not attend the tribunal and had not responded to the claim.
Decision
The tribunal found all claims well-founded. The Respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages, breached contract by failing to pay notice and holiday pay, and unfairly dismissed the Claimant without process. Awards totalled £39,930.70 including arrears of wages, notice pay, holiday pay, statutory redundancy payment, and a compensatory award for unfair dismissal. The tribunal proceeded in the Respondent's absence under rule 47, finding it in accordance with the overriding objective given the Respondent's previous non-engagement.
Practical note
Where a financially distressed employer fails to respond to a claim and does not attend, tribunals will proceed under rule 21/22 and make findings based on the claimant's uncontested evidence, often resulting in awards across multiple heads of claim.
Award breakdown
Award equivalent: 73.4 weeks' gross pay
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6014787/2024
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Hearing type
- rule 21
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Client Services Manager
- Salary band
- £25,000–£30,000
- Service
- 14 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No