Mr R Mindo v Live London Ltd (in liquidation) and Secretary of State for Business and Trade: 2219154/2023
JUDGMENT
The claimant’s employment with the first respondent ended on 17 August 2024. The first respondent is in liquidation. The second respondent has paid various sums to the claimant in accordance with statutory provisions. The claimant claims the balance of these payments, which are payable by the first respondent. The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Failure to consult on collective redundancies[1]The complaint of failure to consult on collective redundancies is well-founded.[2]The first respondent shall pay remuneration to the claimant of 90 days’ pay. Wages[3]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The first respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 31 July to 17 August. The amount claimed is £2174.22 gross. Case No: 2219154/2023 2[4]The second respondent has paid the claimant £1684.40 gross. The first respondent shall pay the claimant the balance of £489.82 gross. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance. Notice Pay[5]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is well-founded. The amount claimed is £1692.00 as damages for breach of contract.[6]The second respondent has paid the claimant the sum of £1286.00. The first respondent shall pay the claimant £406.00. Holiday Pay[7]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The first respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The amount claimed is £1800.00 gross.[8]The second respondent has paid £1682.00 gross. The first respondent shall pay the claimant £118.00 gross. The claimant is responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance. Unfair Dismissal[9]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed. The claimant has received the equivalent of a basic award by virtue of being paid the statutory redundancy payment by the second respondent.[10]There is a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event but there would have been a consultation period of four weeks before the dismissal would have taken place.[11]The first respondent shall pay the claimant a compensatory award of £1839.88. Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars[12]When the proceedings were begun the first respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars.[13]There are no exceptional circumstances that make an award of an amount equal to two weeks’ gross pay unjust or inequitable.[14]It is not just and equitable to make an award of an amount equal to four weeks’ gross pay as there was partial compliance. In accordance with section 38 Employment Act 2002 the first respondent shall therefore pay the claimant £1692.00. Case No: 2219154/2023 3 Failure to provide written reasons for dismissal[15]The first respondent failed to provide the claimant with written reasons for his dismissal. In accordance with section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996 the first respondent shall pay the claimant £1286.00. Non-compliance with ACAS Code[16]The first respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and it is just and equitable to increase the compensatory award payable to the claimant by 15% in accordance with s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[17]This uplift applies to the claims regarding which the claimant raised grievances which were ignored, namely deduction from wages, notice pay and holiday pay. The amount of the uplift is £1013.82 x 15%, which is £152.07. Employment Judge Davidson 5 November 2024 Judgment sent to the parties on: 13 November 2024 …………………………………… For the Tribunal: …………………………………… Case No: 2219154/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr R Mindo Respondents: Live London Limited (in liquidation)(1) Secretary of State for Business and Trade(2) CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 Under Rule 69, the judgment sent to the parties on 13 November 2024, is corrected as set out in block type at paragraph 1 of the corrected judgment. Employment Judge Davidson Date 11 December 2024 SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 19 December 2024 .............................................................. ............................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Important note to parties: Any dates for asking for written reasons, applying for reconsideration or appealing against the judgment are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date the original judgment or reasons were sent, as explained in the letter that sent the original judgment. Case No: 2219154/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr R Mindo Respondents: Live London Limited (in liquidation) (1) Secretary of State for Business and Trade (2) Heard at: London Central (by CVP) On: 5 November 2024 Before: Employment Judge Davidson Representation Claimant: Mr D Rommer, Solicitor First respondent: Did not attend Second respondent: Did not attend CORRECTED JUDGMENT The claimant’s employment with the first respondent ended on 17 August 2024. The first respondent is in liquidation. The second respondent has paid various sums to the claimant in accordance with statutory provisions. The claimant claims the balance of these payments, which are payable by the first respondent. The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Failure to consult on collective redundancies[1]The complaint of failure to consult on collective redundancies is well-founded.[2]The first respondent shall pay remuneration to the claimant of 90 days’ pay. THE PROTECTED PERIOD BEGAN ON 17 AUGUST 2024. Wages[3]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The first respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 31 July to 17 August. The amount claimed is £2174.22 gross. Case No: 2219154/2023 2[4]The second respondent has paid the claimant £1684.40 gross. The first respondent shall pay the claimant the balance of £489.82 gross. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance. Notice Pay[5]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is well-founded. The amount claimed is £1692.00 as damages for breach of contract.[6]The second respondent has paid the claimant the sum of £1286.00. The first respondent shall pay the claimant £406.00. Holiday Pay[7]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The first respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The amount claimed is £1800.00 gross.[8]The second respondent has paid £1682.00 gross. The first respondent shall pay the claimant £118.00 gross. The claimant is responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance. Unfair Dismissal[9]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed. The claimant has received the equivalent of a basic award by virtue of being paid the statutory redundancy payment by the second respondent.[10]There is a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event but there would have been a consultation period of four weeks before the dismissal would have taken place.[11]The first respondent shall pay the claimant a compensatory award of £1839.88. Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars[12]When the proceedings were begun the first respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars.[13]There are no exceptional circumstances that make an award of an amount equal to two weeks’ gross pay unjust or inequitable.[14]It is not just and equitable to make an award of an amount equal to four weeks’ gross pay as there was partial compliance. In accordance with section 38 Employment Act 2002 the first respondent shall therefore pay the claimant £1692.00. Case No: 2219154/2023 3 Failure to provide written reasons for dismissal[15]The first respondent failed to provide the claimant with written reasons for his dismissal. In accordance with section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996 the first respondent shall pay the claimant £1286.00. Non-compliance with ACAS Code[16]The first respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and it is just and equitable to increase the compensatory award payable to the claimant by 15% in accordance with s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[17]This uplift applies to the claims regarding which the claimant raised grievances which were ignored, namely deduction from wages, notice pay and holiday pay. The amount of the uplift is £1013.82 x 15%, which is £152.07. Employment Judge Davidson 5 November 2024 Corrected 11 December 2024 Judgment sent to the parties on: 19 December 2024 …………………………………… For the Tribunal: …………………………………… Case No: 2219154/2023 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr R Mindo Respondents: Live London Limited (in liquidation)(1) Secretary of State for Business and Trade(2) CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 Under Rule 67, the judgment sent to the parties on 13 November 2024, is corrected as set out in block type at paragraph 1 of the corrected judgment. Employment Judge Davidson Date 15 January 2025 SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 15 January 2025 .............................................................. ............................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Important note to parties: Any dates for asking for written reasons, applying for reconsideration or appealing against the judgment are not changed by this certificate of correction and corrected judgment. These time limits still run from the date the original judgment or reasons were sent, as explained in the letter that sent the original judgment. Case No: 2219154/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr R Mindo Respondents: Live London Limited (in liquidation) (1) Secretary of State for Business and Trade (2) Heard at: London Central (by CVP) On: 5 November 2024 Before: Employment Judge Davidson Representation Claimant: Mr D Rommer, Solicitor First respondent: Did not attend Second respondent: Did not attend CORRECTED JUDGMENT The claimant’s employment with the first respondent ended on 17 August 2023. The first respondent is in liquidation. The second respondent has paid various sums to the claimant in accordance with statutory provisions. The claimant claims the balance of these payments, which are payable by the first respondent. The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Failure to consult on collective redundancies[1]The complaint of failure to consult on collective redundancies is well-founded.[2]The first respondent shall pay remuneration to the claimant of 90 days’ pay. THE PROTECTED PERIOD BEGAN ON 17 AUGUST 2023. Wages[3]The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded. The first respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages in the period 31 July to 17 August. The amount claimed is £2174.22 gross. Case No: 2219154/2023 2[4]The second respondent has paid the claimant £1684.40 gross. The first respondent shall pay the claimant the balance of £489.82 gross. The claimant is responsible for the payment of any tax or National Insurance. Notice Pay[5]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is well-founded. The amount claimed is £1692.00 as damages for breach of contract.[6]The second respondent has paid the claimant the sum of £1286.00. The first respondent shall pay the claimant £406.00. Holiday Pay[7]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is well-founded. The first respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The amount claimed is £1800.00 gross.[8]The second respondent has paid £1682.00 gross. The first respondent shall pay the claimant £118.00 gross. The claimant is responsible for paying any tax or National Insurance. Unfair Dismissal[9]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed. The claimant has received the equivalent of a basic award by virtue of being paid the statutory redundancy payment by the second respondent.[10]There is a 100% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event but there would have been a consultation period of four weeks before the dismissal would have taken place.[11]The first respondent shall pay the claimant a compensatory award of £1839.88. Failure to provide a written statement of employment particulars[12]When the proceedings were begun the first respondent was in breach of its duty to provide the claimant with a written statement of employment particulars.[13]There are no exceptional circumstances that make an award of an amount equal to two weeks’ gross pay unjust or inequitable.[14]It is not just and equitable to make an award of an amount equal to four weeks’ gross pay as there was partial compliance. In accordance with section 38 Employment Act 2002 the first respondent shall therefore pay the claimant £1692.00. Case No: 2219154/2023 3 Failure to provide written reasons for dismissal[15]The first respondent failed to provide the claimant with written reasons for his dismissal. In accordance with section 92 Employment Rights Act 1996 the first respondent shall pay the claimant £1286.00. Non-compliance with ACAS Code[16]The first respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and it is just and equitable to increase the compensatory award payable to the claimant by 15% in accordance with s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.[17]This uplift applies to the claims regarding which the claimant raised grievances which were ignored, namely deduction from wages, notice pay and holiday pay. The amount of the uplift is £1013.82 x 15%, which is £152.07.