Mr Harris v K3 Business Technologies Ltd ( In Administration): 1403474/2020
JUDGMENT
[1]The Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal is dismissed.[2]The Claimant is awarded a protective award of two weeks’ pay, from the date of termination of the 24 April 2020 until the 10 March 2020 for a failure to consult within the meaning of section 188 TULCRA 1992, of £1842.00 gross.[3]The Claimant’s claim for damages for breach of contract, for a failure to pay notice pay succeeds. The Claimant is entitled to net notice pay of £3136.00. The Claimant has received £775.60 from the insolvency service. The claimant is entitled to be paid the balance of notice pay of £2360.40 net by the Respondent.[4]The sum of £3136.00 net was unlawfully deducted from the Claimant’s wages. Case Number: 1403474/2020[5]The Claimant is owed holiday pay outstanding on termination of his contract of £383.20 gross.[6]The respondent will now pay the claimant the following sumsa. A protective award of £1842.00 grossb. Damages for breach of contract in respect of outstanding notice pay of £ 2360.40 netc. Unpaid wages of £3136.00 netd. Holiday pay of £383.00 gross.[7]The total amount now payable by the Respondent to the Claimant is £7722.04 Employment Judge Rayner Dated: 11 February 2022 Judgment sent to parties: 16 February 2022 Note: online publication of judgments and reasons The ET is required to maintain a register of all judgments and written reasons. The register must be accessible to the public. It has recently been moved online. All judgments and reasons since February 2017 are now available at: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions. The ET has no power to refuse to place a judgment or reasons on the online register, or to remove a judgment or reasons from the register once they have been placed there. If you consider that these documents should be anonymised in any way prior to publication, you will need to apply to the ET for an order to that effect under Rule 50 of the ET's Rules of Procedure. Such an application would need to be copied to all other parties for comment and it would be carefully scrutinised by a judge (where appropriate, with panel members) before deciding whether (and to what extent) anonymity should be granted to a party or a witness