Mr S Zhang v Career Vantage UK Ltd (in voluntary liquidation): 3202875/2022
JUDGMENT
The unanimous decision of the Tribunal is that the case is dismissed.REASONS
[1]The hearing dates had been listed at a preliminary hearing on 28 September 2022 in the presence of the parties. The hearing was listed to take place on 23-26 and 30 January 2024.[2]On 5 December 2023 the Respondent’s last solicitors informed the Tribunal that the Respondent that they were coming off the record and that correspondence should be directed to The Insolvency Company. A search of the Companies House register showed that the Respondent had gone into creditors voluntary liquidation with liquidators appointed on 5 December 2023.[3]The insolvency practitioner was written to by the Tribunal on 22 December 2023 requiring it to notify the Tribunal by 5 January 2024 whether it intended to attend and advance a case to the final hearing.[4]No response was received from the insolvency practitioner. Case Number: 3202875/2022 2[5]Neither party attended the hearing nor had either party written to the Tribunal to request a postponement or to explain their non-attendance. The Employment Judge‘s clerk spent from 9.05 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. trying to contact the parties by email and telephone without success or response.[6]The case was therefore dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. Employment Judge C Lewis Dated: 23 January 2023 Case Number: 3202875/2022 1 of 3 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Shuai Zhang Respondent: CAREERVANTAGEUK Limited (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) Heard at: East London Tribunal Hearing Centre (by CVP) On: 2 July 2025 Before: Employment Judge Crosfill Appearances For the claimant: Mr Williams, a solicitor of Shakespeare Martineau LLP For the respondent: No appearance or representation.[1]The Claimant’s e-mail of 4 October 2021 amounted to a qualifying disclosure for the purposes of Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in that: 1.1. The e-mail included information that employees had been working full time when furlough payments were being claimed in respect of 80% of their ordinary remuneration; and 1.2. the Claimant reasonably believed that information tended to show that the Respondent had breached a legal obligation and/or that a criminal offence had been committed; and Case Number: 3202875/2022 2 of 3 1.3. The Claimant reasonably believed that making his disclosures was in the public interest. 1.4. That where, in subsequent e-mails the Claimant continued to repeat the same information these were also qualifying disclosures.[2]That as the Claimant had made the disclosures to his employer the qualifying disclosures were protected disclosures.[3]That the Claimant had been subjected to the detriments set out in his ET1 and witness statement; and[4]That the treatment was on the ground that he had made the protected disclosures; and[5]That the principle reason for the dismissal was that the Claimant had made protected disclosures.[6]In the circumstances the Claimant’s claims that the Respondent subjected him to detriments on the ground that he made protected disclosures contract to Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well founded and the Claimant is entitled to a declaration under Section 49(1)(a) to that effect.[7]The Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal brought trough Section 94 and Section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is well founded.[8]The Claimant is entitled to a basic award of (1year’s service x 1) capped at £554.00[9]The compensatory award is calculated as follows: 9.1. The Claimant was unemployed from 3 January 2021 to 12 December 2021 (49 weeks) 9.2. The Claimant’s net weekly pay was £682.18 9.3. The loss of basic salary was therefore £682.18 x 47 = £33,426.82 9.4. The Claimant has lost the net sum of £6,763.81 by way of commission and bonus over the same 9.5. The Claimant has lost the sum of £1,237.04 by way of employer’s pension contributions. 9.6. The total of the Claimant’s pecuniary loss is therefore £40,927.67 9.7. The Claimant currently pays income tax at the rate of 40%. 9.8. The compensatory award needs to be grossed up to reflect the incidence of tax. The grossed up sum is 1.6 x £40,927.67 = £65,484.27 Case Number: 3202875/2022 3 of 3[10]The Tribunal considers that it is just and equitable to award the Claimant the sum of £20,000 in respect of an injury to feelings occasioned by the detriments that occurred prior to the Claimant’s dismissal.[11]The Tribunal has not ‘grossed up’ the injury to feelings award on the assumption that the award is not subject to tax as it does not arise from the dismissal. The Claimant has liberty to apply to vary this order if HMRC treat the said sum as subject to income tax.[12]The Respondent is Ordered to Pay the Claimant the sums of: 12.1. The basic award: £554.00 12.2. The compensatory award: £65,484.27 12.3. Compensation for injury to feelings £20,000 That is a total sum of £86,038.27