Case 1306546/2020 · Employment Tribunal
All present in person save for Jonathan Neale, Abubarkar Isifu, Alison Bowen, Alex Lloyd and Joanne Williams For the v None in attendance (the attendance of the fourth respondent is excused) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1306546/2020
- Decision date
- 12 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
All present in person save for Jonathan Neale, Abubarkar Isifu, Alison Bowen, Alex Lloyd and Joanne Williams For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Birmingham before Employment Judge Perry sitting alone, the tribunal recorded a consent judgment and found that there was a relevant transfer pursuant to regulation 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 from the first to the second respondent on or about 28 May 2020.
The tribunal also recorded that claim number 1306546/2020, brought by Ms Jean Richards, had been marked discontinued in error because of an incorrect early conciliation certificate number. That was remedied on 30 July 2020, reconsideration had been requested but not addressed, and the claim was accepted with effect from that date and consolidated with the other complaints.
The substantive complaints of unfair dismissal pursuant to regulation 7(1) TUPE, ordinary unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, failure to consult under TUPE, and other money claims were not finally determined at this hearing. They were listed to be heard before a full panel on 20 to 22 December 2021, with a separate notice of hearing to follow; no ancillary directions were made and the existing bundles and witness statements were left to stand.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found that there was a relevant transfer pursuant to regulation 3 TUPE 2006 from the first to the second respondent on or about 28 May 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 3 TUPE 2006
- regulation 7(1) TUPE
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.