Mr J Cooper v Southern Grid Utilities Ltd: 6017658/2024
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows:[1]THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT IS CHANGED TO SOUTHERN GRID UTILITIES LTD. WHILST THE CLAIMANT BROUGHT HIS CLAIM AGAINST R & M CONTRACTORS LTD, COMPANIES HOUSE RECORDS INDICATE THAT IT CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOUTHERN GRID UTILITIES LTD ON 19 MARCH 2025.[2]The Claimant was unfairly dismissed and is entitled to an award of compensation in the sum of £8,250 payable by the Respondent. This is comprised of: a) A Basic Award of £5,250 based on his age of 54 at the effective date of termination, the maximum statutory amount of a week’s pay of £700, 5 complete years’ service and a multiplier of 7.5; b) A Compensatory Award of £2,500 in respect of fees for qualifications that the Respondent was require to pay and £500 in respect of loss of statutory rights;[3]The Claimant was wrongfully dismissed and is entitled to damages for breach of contract payable by the Respondent in the sum of £7,125 gross, representing his entitlement to 5 weeks’ statutory payment in lieu of notice payable at £1425 gross per week.[4]The Claimant is not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. Case No: 6017658/2024REASONS
[1]These are the reasons for the Judgment which was sent to the parties on 2 December 2025. They were requested by the Respondent on 12 December 2025.Background
[2]By a Claim Form received by the Employment Tribunal on 6 November 2024, following a period of ACAS Early Conciliation between 27 August and 8 October 2024, the Claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, entitlement to a statutory notice payment and damages for breach of contract in respect of notice pay. The claim was brought against his employers, R & M Contractors Ltd, a company which subsequently changed its name to Southern Grid Utilities Ltd on 19 March 2025. The registered office address remained the same.[3]In its Response, received by the Tribunal on 5 December 2025, the Respondent disputed the Claimant’s length of service to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal, asserted that he was a self-employed contractor and, in any event, denied that he had been dismissed.[4]Notice of the final hearing and case management orders were sent to the parties on 8 November 2024.[5]On 29 May 2024, the Employment Tribunal sent a letter to the Claimant Page 1 of 5 asking him to show cause why his unfair dismissal complaint should not be dismissed given the assertion made by the Respondent about his length of service.[6]On 6 June 2025, the Claimant responded by way of a document entitled “Supplementary Information” asserting that his employment transferred to the Respondent by operation of a TUPE transfer on 24 August 2023.[7]By letter dated 9 July 2025, the Employment Tribunal wrote to the parties on the instruction of Employment Judge Corrigan, advising that the unfair dismissal complaint would proceed to be determined at the final hearing and setting revised dates for the case management orders.[8]On 15 September 2025, the Claimant wrote to the Tribunal advising that the Respondent’s email address was no longer operational and he had been unable to find another address to contact them on. He explained that he had prepared all the documents for the final hearing but consequently had not been able to submit them to the Respondent.[9]On 7 October 2025, pre-hearing check letters were sent to both parties. The Claimant replied on 9 October, advising that he had complied with the case management orders but had received nothing from the Respondent. He reminded the Tribunal that he had no up to date contact details for the Respondent. The Respondent did not respond to the pre-hearing check letter.[10]On 27 October 2025, a member of the Employment Tribunal’s administrative staff spoke to Mr Ryan Parkes, of the Respondent company, on the telephone and requested he provide an alternative email address. However, he said that he no longer “owned” the Respondent company and further stated that he could not provide a more recent contact address or email.[11]On 3 November 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the Respondent in the name Southern Grid Utilities Ltd at the last known address provided by the Claimant. This indicated that the hearing would proceed as planned and a decision taken on the basis of the evidence available. Documents & Evidence[12]For today’s hearing, the Claimant provided the Tribunal with a document pack consisting of 54 pages, which included his schedule of loss and witness statement.[13]Prior to the hearing, I made a search of the Companies House website and ascertained that the Respondent had changed its name to Southern Grid Utilities Limited on 19 March 2025, at the same registered office address and was shown as an active company. I further ascertained that Mr Parkes had been a director of the Respondent company until he resigned on 4 July 2023. I also discovered that there was a company called R & M contractors Ltd but it was only incorporated on 28 May 2025, declared a different registered office address and had a different director. I further determined that Parkes Utilities Surfacing Ltd was dissolved on the 31 May 2016 and Mr Parkes was the sole director. A second company with the same name went into administration Page 2 of 5 on 24 August 2023, there is a notice of moved from administration to dissolution dated 27 August 2025 and Mr Parkes is one of the active directors. The administrators progress report dated 20 March 2025 indicates that all of the staff were made redundant and claimed arrears of pay and holiday pay from the Redundancy Payments Service. The Issues 12. The Claimant has brought three complaints: whether he was unfairly dismissed, whether he is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and damages for breach of contract in respect of his entitlement to notice of dismissal. 13. The issues are relatively straightforward: was he an employee; if so, was he dismissed; if so, has the Respondent shown a potentially fair reason for the dismissal; if so, is it redundancy; if not, is there another potentially fair reasons for the dismissal; if so, was dismissal reasonable in all the circumstances? If there is no potentially fair reason shown, then the dismissal is automatically unfair. Finally, was the Claimant dismissed without notice of dismissal. Finally, if any of his complaints are well-founded, then what compensation or damages is he entitled to?Findings
[14]I started the hearing shortly after 10 am by which time only the Claimant had attended the CVP room. We had received no further contact from the Respondent and of course had no way of contacting them. I would add that it did seem improbable that Mr Parkes did not have up to date contact details for the company. In the circumstances, I decided to proceed with the hearing.[15]Having considered the documents and the witness evidence from the Claimant, both from his written statement and orally, I made the following findings of fact: a) The Claimant was continuously employed by the Respondent from 7 January 2019 until 13 August 2024 as Project Manager; b) Whilst he acknowledges that he was paid under CIS (the Construction Industry Scheme), the circumstances and arrangements of his work that he puts forward in evidence indicate that on balance of probabilities he was in reality an employee; c) His employment transferred from his original employer, Parkes Utility Services Ltd, to the Respondent on 11 August 2023, by operation of a TUPE transfer, that is by operation of law under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. He did not claim a statutory redundancy payment at that time; d) He was on annual leave from 9 to 12 August 2024 and was due to return to work on 13 August. However, he was told by telephone on 12 August that he had been “stood down” from work (ie not to come to work) without any reason being given; Page 3 of 5 e) Despite his attempts to contact the Respondent over the course of the next few days, it was only on 21 August 2024 that he received an email advising him that he had been “laid off” from work commencing 12 August 2024, that he had been absent from work without permission and that the company was not in a position financially to have anyone returning to work in the office; f) I did not accept the Respondent’s assertion in its grounds of resistance that there was a break in the Claimant’s employment between Parkes Utilities Servicing Ltd and the Respondent or its explanation as to why the Claimant was stood down or the suggestion that in reality he resigned by handing in his laptop and returning his office keys; g) I further did not accept its assertion in its grounds of resistance that the Claimant was a self-employed sub-contractor and that evidence of this was that at the same time he was running his own company called Just Training. I accepted the Claimant’s evidence. Indeed, the Claimant explained that he and Mr Parkes were going to set up a training company but this never came to fruition and the Respondent was effectively twisting the truth;Conclusions
[16]On the basis of the evidence before me, I accept that the Claimant was dismissed and in the absence of sufficient evidence from the Respondent to show me that there was a potentially fair reason for his dismissal, I further conclude that his dismissal was automatically unfair.[17]Whilst it may be that there was a redundancy situation, the Respondent has not shown in its response that this amounts to a redundancy in law or was the potentially fair reason for the dismissal. Indeed, it has provided insufficient evidence on which to make a positive finding.[18]Further, whilst the expression “laid off” was used in the email sent to the Claimant (as referred to above), I do not know if this was used in the legal sense but in any event there is no evidence that the Respondent had a contractual right to lay off staff and without pay. In reality, the facts that I have found point to a dismissal.[19]I therefore determined that the Claimant was dismissed on 21 August 2024, his dismissal was automatically unfair.[20]The Claimant had been employed by the Respondent for five complete years and was aged 54 at the effective date of termination, ie when his employment ended. He was paid £1425 gross per week, this was based on his working a five-day week, at a daily rate which included vehicle allowance and at the rate of £285 per day. The statutory ceiling on a week’s pay for the purposes of calculation of a Basic Award for unfair dismissal was at that time £700 gross week.[21]By way of remedy for unfair dismissal I made an award of £5,250 in respect of the Basic Award. This is based on five complete years service and given the age of the Claimant at the effective date of termination is based on a Page 4 of 5 multiplier of 7.5. 7.5 multiplied by £700 equals £5,250.[22]I made a Compensatory Award for unfair dismissal in respect of the cost of the Claimant’s work qualifications. I accepted, that it was custom and practice in the Claimant’s industry that the employer would pay for renewal of his educational qualifications. The Claimant needed to renew two qualifications, the New Road and Street Works Act Supervisor’s ticket and the CSCS Industry Health and Safety qualification. The cost of renewing these qualifications came to £2,500.[23]The Claimant did not seek, and I did not make, any award for loss of earnings, past or future, given that he had been unable to work due to health issues. He suffered a major heart attack in May 2025 and was in receipt of PIP (Personal Independence Payment) and Universal Credit. He is not currently able to look for work and he did not believe it was fair to claim any loss of earnings from the Respondent. However I did make an award of £500 for loss of statutory rights.[24]In respect of the Claimant’s entitlement to notice pay, he was dismissed without notice and had a statutory entitlement to 5 weeks’ notice of dismissal. He did not get any notice or payment in lieu and so I make a award of damages in respect of that failure which amounts to a breach of contract. This is in the sum of 5 multiplied by his actual weekly earnings of £1425, which equals £7125 gross. The Claimant did not have any income during that five week period. The Claimant is responsible to declare this income to HMRC. Postscript[25]I had corrected the name of the Respondent to reflect the change of name. Unfortunately, the original Judgment contained the original name. I subsequently issued a Notice of Correction and a Corrected Judgment to reflect the change of name.