Claimant v Rose Villa Care Limited

All claimants withdrew their unfair dismissal complaints, likely due to the employer being in creditors voluntary liquidation and their claims being directed to the Secretary of State.

All claimants withdrew their holiday pay complaints, consistent with the insolvency context where such claims would be pursued through the Redundancy Payments Service.

All claimants withdrew their arrears of pay complaints, likely to be pursued through the statutory insolvency scheme given the first respondent's liquidation.

The tribunal found that the notice pay claims by Edina Chikaka, Amelia D'Arcy, Aysha Osman and Freya Robinson were not well-founded, meaning the tribunal determined on the evidence that these claimants were not entitled to notice pay. The other claimants' notice pay claims were withdrawn.

The tribunal found that claims by eight specific claimants (Amoliofo, Barrett, Flecknor, Garcias, Pike, Rutter, Tissera, Warner) for redundancy payment were not well-founded, likely because they did not meet the qualifying service requirements of two years. Other claimants' redundancy claims were withdrawn.

The tribunal found that the first respondent failed to comply with section 188 requirements to inform and consult on collective redundancies. The tribunal awarded the maximum protective award of 90 days' pay to all claimants except 'Rose Villa Staff', demonstrating a serious breach of consultation obligations.