Case 1305262/2020 · Employment Tribunal

in person For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 1305262/2020
Decision date: 15 March 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Richardson Signed

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 11 and 12 February 2021, Employment Judge A Richardson considered whether Mr R Woodall had sufficient continuing service with Rico Logistics Limited to bring unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims. The tribunal decided that there was a relevant transfer of an undertaking from Woods (Haulage) Limited in administration to the respondent on about 12 February 2019, that the claimant was assigned to the part of the business that transferred, and that regulation 8(7) of TUPE did not apply.

The tribunal found that Rico had engaged with Woods after The Pallet Network withdrew services in December 2018, that alternative arrangements were made with Palletforce, and that around 15 Woods clients transferred to Rico together with about 12 members of warehouse and driving staff. It accepted that the claimant worked closely with Mr Prosser and Mr Whitehead to secure the transfer of clients and staff, and that the transferred business formed an economic entity which retained its identity in Rico's new Haulage Division.

On the assignment issue, the tribunal rejected the respondent's case that the claimant's role as managing director of Woods was too broad to be assigned to the transferred undertaking. It accepted the claimant's evidence that his work in the Haulage Division was materially the same as his former day-to-day role, and that his Circle Express or Northern Regional Director duties arose only later. The tribunal therefore found that the claimant transferred on the same terms and conditions and that he was part of the organised grouping of employees that transferred.

The tribunal also held that regulation 8(7) had no application, citing OTG Ltd v Barke and Key2Law (Surrey) LLP v De'Antiquis. It recorded that the claimant had applied for and been paid redundancy and other sums despite his TUPE case, and said it would send a copy of the judgment to the Insolvency Service for recoupment as appropriate. No monetary award was made in this judgment, and the merits of the unfair dismissal and redundancy claims were not decided.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal did not decide the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. It determined the preliminary TUPE/continuity issue and found the claimant had transferred with the relevant part of the business, so he had sufficient continuing service to pursue the claim.	Other	—	—
Redundancy	The tribunal did not decide entitlement to a redundancy payment. It determined the preliminary TUPE/continuity issue and found the claimant had transferred with the relevant part of the business, so he had sufficient continuing service to pursue the claim.	Other	—	—
Transfer of undertakings (TUPE)	The tribunal found there was a relevant transfer of an undertaking from Woods (Haulage) Limited in administration to Rico Logistics Limited on about 12 February 2019, that the claimant was assigned to the transferring part of the business, and that regulation 8(7) of TUPE did not apply.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.