Mr J Booth and Mr M Booth v Shearings Ltd (in administration) and Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (England and Wales : Breach of Contract) [2023] UKET 2410458/2021 (18 January 2023)

The tribunal found that the claimants were entitled to statutory payments for breach of contract and redundancy as the employer was in administration and unable to fulfil obligations.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2023] UKET 2410458/2021
Parties: Claimant: Mr J Booth; Claimant: Mr M Booth; Respondent: Shearings Ltd (in administration); Respondent: Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Judgment Date: 18 January 2023
Procedural Posture: Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome: Claims upheld
Legal Topics: Breach of Contract, Redundancy, Statutory Entitlements

Employment Law Breach of Contract Redundancy Statutory Entitlements

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2

Parties

Mr J Booth

Claimant

Mr M Booth

Claimant

Shearings Ltd (in administration)

Respondent

Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimants are entitled to payments for breach of contract following redundancy
2 Whether statutory entitlements are owed by the respondent company in administration

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the claimants were entitled to statutory payments for breach of contract and redundancy as the employer was in administration and unable to fulfil obligations.

Court Disposition

Claims upheld

Orders

Secretary of State to pay statutory entitlements to claimants
Shearings Ltd (in administration) found liable for breach of contract

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.