Claimant v Amyris UK Trading Limited (in liquidation)
Outcome
Individual claims
Both claimants were found to have been unfairly dismissed by the second respondent, Beauty Labs International Limited. The tribunal determined that the dismissals did not follow a fair procedure and were therefore unfair under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The first claimant succeeded in her claim for unauthorised deduction of wages. The tribunal found that the second respondent had failed to pay the quarter one bonus due on 30 April 2023, amounting to £6,500.
The first claimant's claim for a protective award under s189 TULRCA 1993 was not upheld. The tribunal determined that the first claimant was not entitled to such an award.
The second claimant's claim for a protective award under s189 TULRCA 1993 was dismissed. The tribunal found that the second claimant was not entitled to such an award.
Facts
Two claimants, Ms Ryan and Mr Nikolov, brought claims against two respondents in liquidation. The tribunal found they were not employed by the first respondent but were employed by the second respondent, Beauty Labs International Ltd. Both were dismissed in September/October 2023. Ms Ryan was also owed a bonus payment from April 2023. The second respondent did not attend the hearing.
Decision
The tribunal found both claimants were unfairly dismissed by Beauty Labs International Ltd. Ms Ryan received £34,250 compensatory award (reduced by 50% Polkey) plus £6,500 unpaid bonus. Mr Nikolov received £6,713.24 total (basic and compensatory awards). Both claimants' protective award claims failed. Claims against the first respondent were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Practical note
Tribunals will apply Polkey reductions even where an insolvent respondent does not defend the case, and will carefully examine which entity in a corporate group was the actual employer before determining liability.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
There is a 50% chance that the first claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3309360/2023
- Decision date
- 28 February 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No