Miss B Strange v Ms J Stratford T/a Jane de Weck Photography: 6010316/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The following claims are upheld:(a) for a statutory redundancy payment(b) for breach of contract in relation to notice pay, and(c) for holiday pay.[2]According to the figures set out in the claim form, which were not disputed, and ignoring pence, the claimant earned £2,105 gross per month, or £486 per week.[3]The figure stated on the claim form for net earnings is £1,746 per month. However, the correct figure, applying the normal deductions for tax, is £1,809 per month. The difference reflects monthly pension contributions of £63 deducted from her salary (3%). The net value of her basic pay was therefore £1,746 per month.[4]The same pension contribution was added to her remuneration by the respondent, so the overall net value of her remuneration was £1,872 per month, or £432 per week.[5]The claimant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on 12 year’s service. 9 of those years were over the age of 22 and the claimant accrued one week’s pay for each of those years. The first three years’ service were not and the claimant accrued half a week’s pay per year, so the total figure is based on 10.5 Page 1 of 3 years’ service. At £486 per week (the gross figure) the statutory redundancy payment due is £5,103.[6]There was also a failure to pay the full amount of notice pay. According to the claim form, the claimant was given notice on 28 February 2025 and was paid for the following two weeks only. Given her length of service she was entitled to 12 weeks’ notice and so is due the balance of 10 weeks net pay. At £432 per week, the total notice pay due is £4,320.[7]Correspondence between the parties shows an agreed figure for unpaid holiday pay in the sum of £486.[8]The total of the above sums is £9,909.REASONS
[1]This claim was apparently brought against two respondents although in fact they are one and the same. Ms Jane Stratford ran a photography business as a sole trader under the name Jane de Weck Photography and the claim was brought against her at her home and business addresses in those different names. As a sole trader, Ms Stratford is personally liable for the debts of the business, and Jane de Weck Photography is a trading name for that business, so in reality the sole respondent is Ms Stratford.[2]Miss Strange worked for the Ms Stratford for over 12 years, beginning in March 2013, when she was 18. Unfortunately the business ran into difficulties and stopped trading in March 2025. Miss Strange then brought this claim, on 25 March, for some unpaid wages, holiday pay, a statutory redundancy payment and notice pay.[3]The claim was not disputed and Ms Stratford did not attend this hearing. The response form stated that the business run into financial difficulties, that she told Miss Strange that she only had enough money to pay her for the next two weeks until 15 March 2025 and that she would be making an application for a Debt Relief Order.[4]Those dates are not in dispute. The only difference is that Ms Stratford has stated that Miss Strange was on unpaid leave after 15 March and that her employment in fact came to an end on 11 April 2025. If so, Miss Strange would be entitled to her wages for that period, since employers are not generally entitled to place their staff on unpaid leave. However, Miss Strange’s claim form makes clear that she was told two weeks in advance that her contract would be coming to an end on 15 March, and on that basis I conclude that the contract concluded on that date.[5]There is nothing to show that Ms Stratford has applied for a Debt Relief Order and Miss Strange advised that her name did not appear on the national register. Page 2 of 3 Consequently, there is no restriction on these proceedings and the relevant sums need to be assessed.[6]The basis of those calculations are set out above.