Miss R Rice v Mr C Adamson and The Secretary of State For Business and Trade (formally BEIS): 1403218/2022
JUDGMENT
[1]Any stay previously imposed on these proceedings is lifted.[2]It is declared that the Claimant was an employee of the First Respondent from 7/6/2022 to 5/7/2022 when she was dismissed without notice[3]It is declared that prior to his bankruptcy on 28/10/2022 (case number BKT5141760) the First Respondent was liable to pay the Claimant the following sums; £590 being unpaid pay for one week (5 days) including overtime £230 in lieu of 2.3 days accrued holidays untaken at the time of dismissal £500 (one week’s pay) in lieu of notice to which the Claimant was entitled by the terms of her written contract; and £1000 (2 week’s pay) as compensation under section 38 Employment Rights Act 1996 for the First Respondent’s failure to provide a proper statement of employment particulars within 2 months of the start of the Claimant’s employment or at all.[4]The Second Respondent must pay the Claimant such of the above sums as it is required by law to pay as guaranteed payments from the National Insurance Fund following the First Respondent’s bankruptcy.[5]All other claims are dismissed. Employment Judge J S Burns 31/10/2024 For Secretary of the Tribunals Date sent to parties 7 November 2024 Jade Lobb Note: Oral reasons having been provided at the hearing, no written reasons will be provided unless a party delivers a written request within 14 days of the date that this document is sent to the parties. Case No. 1403218/2022 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss R Rice Respondents:(1) Mr Christopher Adamson(2) The Secretary of State For Business and Trade (formally BEIS) NOTICE The Claimants application by email dated 14/11/24 for reconsideration of the judgment dated 31/10/24 is refused as the tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked. REASONS (for the judgment dated 31/10/24)[1]I decided to lift the stay as the matter had been delayed for a long time and the Claimant wished to proceed. I heard brief evidence from her and was satisfied that she was an employee and had not been paid as she claimed.[2]The judgment cannot be enforced against the First Respondent, but that is not a defect as a matter of law. Once a bankruptcy order is made in relation to any debt provable in the bankruptcy there is no remedy other than proving in the bankruptcy (Insolvency Act 1986 s285(3)(a)). The claims which are now merged in the judgment were pre-bankruptcy debts of the First Respondent, who was made bankrupt on 28/10/22. Hence the pre-bankruptcy debts cannot be enforced against the First Respondent, (even after his bankruptcy order has ended) but only against such assets as there may have been in his bankrupt estate, which is a matter for the Trustee in Bankruptcy/Official Receiver to deal with, and to whom the Claimant should apply if she has not already done so.[3]Accordingly, it was unnecessary to ensure that the First Respondent was aware of the lift of the stay in the proceedings, or of the hearing on 31/10/24.[4]If the judgment debts cannot be satisfied out of the bankrupt estate, then the Second Respondent will pay certain guaranteed sums under Part XII of the ERA 1996. What payments are made depend on the facts of the case and are subject to the following limits: 8 weeks arrears of pay, up to 6 weeks holiday, statutory notice pay and a basic award (section 184 ERA 1996) or statutory redundancy pay, all subject to the statutory cap on a weeks pay.[5]Given the facts that the statutory cap on a weeks’ pay in 2022 was £571 (ie in excess of the Claimant’s pay) and that she was not due the statutory notice in section 87 ERA 1996 (because she was employed for less than a month), and was not due a basic award or a redundancy payment, it is likely that the sums covered by the judgment which the Second Respondent is liable to pay are limited to £590 being unpaid pay for one week (5 days) including overtime and £230 in lieu of 2.3 days accrued holidays untaken at the time of dismissal. This is a matter which should be taken up by the Claimant with the Second Respondent directly. Case No. 1403218/2022 2