Case 1302189/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Ghirmay v Carisway Facilities Support Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302189/2022
- Decision date
- 31 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Knowles Claimant
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss R Ghirmay
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that there was no TUPE transfer from Carisway Facilities Support Limited to Greenzone Cleaning & Support Services Limited under Regulation 3(1)(a) or 3(1)(b) of TUPE 2006. Because liability for the claimant's contract of employment did not transfer, the claims against the second respondent were dismissed.
As against the first respondent, the tribunal found that Miss Ghirmay was dismissed by reason of redundancy. Her statutory redundancy payment claim succeeded, and the tribunal ordered payment of £1,021.29, calculated as 1.5 x 2 years' continuous service x average gross weekly pay of £340.43. The tribunal also found that she had been unfairly dismissed. It concluded there was a 50% chance that she would have been fairly dismissed and applied a 50% Polkey reduction to the compensatory award.
The tribunal further found that she was dismissed without notice and was entitled to statutory notice pay of £547.40 net. It also found that she was entitled to accrued but untaken holiday pay under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, and ordered £909 gross for that entitlement. The tribunal said no separate basic award was made because the first respondent had to pay the statutory redundancy payment, and it found that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 (as amended) did not apply because the claimant had not claimed relevant statutory benefits between dismissal and judgment. The total award against the first respondent was £14,522.29.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found there was no TUPE transfer from Carisway Facilities Support Limited to Greenzone Cleaning & Support Services Limited under Regulation 3(1)(a) or 3(1)(b) of TUPE 2006, so the claims against the second respondent were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and succeeded in her claim for a statutory redundancy payment. The award was calculated as 1.5 x 2 years' continuous service x average gross weekly pay of £340.43. | Upheld | — | £1,021 |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the first respondent. The tribunal found a 50% chance that she would have been fairly dismissed and reduced the compensatory award by 50% under Polkey. | Upheld | — | £12,045 |
| Breach of contract | The claimant was dismissed without notice and succeeded in her claim for statutory notice pay against the first respondent. The award was £547.40 net, calculated as 2 x average net weekly pay of £273.70. | Upheld | — | £547 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the claimant was entitled to accrued but untaken holiday pay under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The award was £909 gross, based on 98.59 hours outstanding at £9.22 per hour. | Upheld | — | £909 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £14,522
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £12,045
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- Regulation 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) TUPE 2006
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited 1988 ICR 142
- Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998
- The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 (as amended)
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.