K Bal v The Sofa and Chair Company (in voluntary liquidation): 6005904/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]This is a claim for unfair dismissal under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 brought by Kanwaljit Bal against the Sofa and Chair Company Ltd (in liquidation).[2]This is the written decision following oral judgment delivered at the hearing. Preliminary matters[3]The respondent has played no part in the proceedings[4]The tribunal received an email from the respondent’s representatives on the evening before the hearing stating that they would not be responding to the claim or attending at trial.[5]Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 provides that If a party fails to attend or to be represented at a hearing, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim or proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party which I proceeded to do. The hearing[6]I heard evidence from the claimant on oath and had a 57 page bundle as well as a witness statement from the claimant of the 17/10/25.[7]In the absence of the respondents I asked the claimant some questions regarding her claim and the evidence she had provided.[8]The Claimant’s evidence was unchallenged and I accept her evidence.[9]The claimant was an employee of the respondent and worked as a sales executive for the respondent from 12/7/21 until her dismissal on 28/11/24.[10]She performed consistently well and achieved good sales figures up until the point of her dismissal. She was within 85% of her sales target when she was dismissed and this was around what she consistently delivered. She has not been provided with the more lucrative trade clients promised to her by her employer, or the management support on sales technique which had also been promised to her.[11]I find her performance was at a good level. She was not a poor performer. It seems the company was in financial difficulty given it entered liquidation shortly after C dismissal and this may have been more of a consideration in its decision to dismiss the claimant than her performance.[12]She was entitled not to be unfairly dismissed under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996.[13]She was not dismissed for a potentially fair reason and therefore the dismissal was unlawful. The employer has not established a potentially fair reason for dismissal.[14]Her dismissal came out of the blue – she had not been put on notice of the possibility of dismissal. She had never received a verbal warning or written warning due to alleged poor performance. The employer had a written letter of dismissal ready at a meeting which purported to be a performance discussion. The respondent had reached a pre-determined outcome prior to that meeting. The dismissal was procedurally unfair as well as substantively unfair.[15]The respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code.[16]No compensatory award is sought due to the respondent’s insolvent status, a company in liquidation with little likelihood if any, of payment to unsecured creditors.[17]Therefore the remedy sought is a basic award which can be met by the National Insurance Fund.[18]Miss Bal has 3 years continuous service and was aged over 41 during the period of employment and is therefore entitled to 4.5 times her average weekly salary. Her average weekly salary is above the statutory cap for the purposes of seeking payment from the National Insurance Fund and therefore I use the capped figure of £719[19]Therefore the total amount payable to the Claimant is £3,235.50.[1]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded and succeeds.[2]I make an order of a basic award to be paid to the claimant of £3,235.50.