Claimant won £8,756 awarded Employment Tribunal · 3 February 2023

Unfair dismissal after employer enters administration: compensation awarded

A former employee with 5 years' service was awarded £8,756 after her employer failed to defend her unfair dismissal claim and later entered administration.

1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026

Case details

Key facts

  • The claimant was employed from 15 January 2015 until 3 November 2020.
  • Her gross weekly pay was £191.84 based on a 22-hour week at NMW.
  • The first respondent went into administration on 21 July 2021.
  • The claimant did not obtain alternative employment or claim benefits after dismissal.
  • The respondent failed to defend the claim and the response was struck out.

Timeline

  1. Employment started

    Miss H Grogan began working for Greenbrow Social Club Ltd.

  2. Dismissal

    The claimant was dismissed from her employment.

  3. Tribunal orders sent

    The Tribunal sent orders to the parties.

  4. Strike out warning

    The Tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to show cause why the response should not be struck out.

  5. First respondent entered administration

    Greenbrow Social Club Ltd went into administration.

  6. Response struck out

    Employment Judge Holmes struck out the respondent's response due to non-compliance and failure to defend.

  7. Claimant provided payslips

    The claimant submitted payslips showing furlough pay of £144.50 per week.

  8. Judgment issued

    Employment Judge Holmes made awards for unfair dismissal, notice pay, and holiday pay.

The outcome

The tribunal found in favour of the former employee, awarding a total of £8,756.45. The employer's response was struck out for failing to comply with tribunal orders and not actively defending the claim.

Compensation breakdown:

  • Basic award for unfair dismissal: £1,438.80
  • Compensatory award for unfair dismissal: £5,656.32
  • Notice pay: £959.20
  • Holiday pay: £702.13

Lessons & takeaways

  • If an employer fails to defend a claim, the tribunal can strike out their response and proceed to judgment based on the claimant's evidence.
  • When calculating loss of earnings after dismissal, the tribunal may consider when employment would have ended in any event, such as when the employer entered administration.
  • Claimants should provide clear evidence of their earnings, including any furlough payments, to ensure the correct weekly pay is used in calculations.

This case shows what can happen when an employer simply does not engage with tribunal proceedings. The former employee, who had worked for Greenbrow Social Club Ltd for five years, brought claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay, and holiday pay after being dismissed in November 2020. The employer failed to comply with tribunal orders and indicated it did not intend to defend the claim, leading to its response being struck out.

What the tribunal decided

With no defence from the employer, the tribunal assessed compensation based on the claimant's evidence. It accepted her gross weekly pay of £191.84 (based on a 22-hour week at the National Minimum Wage), rather than the lower furlough figure she had received. The tribunal calculated the basic award at 1.5 weeks' pay per year of service, giving £1,438.80.

For the compensatory award, the tribunal considered that the claimant's employment would have ended when the employer entered administration on 21 July 2021. It awarded loss of earnings for 32 weeks after the notice period, totalling £5,656.32. Notice pay of £959.20 and holiday pay of £702.13 were also awarded.

What the employer could have done differently

If the employer had engaged with the process, it could have potentially argued that the dismissal was fair or that the claimant's losses were limited. By failing to defend, it left the tribunal to decide based solely on the claimant's submissions.

Why this matters

This case highlights that tribunals will proceed without an employer's input if they fail to comply. It also shows how the administration of an employer can cap the period of lost earnings, as the tribunal assumed employment would have ended on that date in any event.

Similar cases