In Secretary of State for Employment v Thompson, an employee whose employment ended without notice on his employer's insolvency was entitled to notice pay from the national insurance fund, but was under a duty to mitigate his loss.
The EAT holds in Clark v Secretary of State for Employment that pay in lieu of notice is "pay" within the meaning of Article 119, even if the payment is made by the Secretary of State for Employment out of the National Insurance Fund where the employer is insolvent.
Where the conduct of an administrator or receiver of a company amounts to an election to treat a continued contract of employment as giving rise to a separate liability in the administration or receivership, that contract is "adopted" within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, holds the House of Lords in Powdrill and Atkinson v Watson and another; Talbot and another v Cadge and another; and Talbot and another v Grundy and another.
In Secretary of State for Employment v Cooper  ICR 766 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that it was appropriate for the Secretary of State for Employment to reduce the amount of money awarded in lieu of notice in an insolvency case by an amount equivalent to the basic rate of tax.
In Westwood v Secretary of State for Employment the House of Lords holds that the statutory right to minimum periods of notice amends the contract of employment. So an employee who is dismissed without statutory notice may sue for breach of contract but is under a duty to mitigate the loss. The Lords also hold that unemployment benefit received In the notice period is deductible in mitigation.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.