Case 1309584/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hewitt v First Group — 2021
- Case reference
- 1309584/2020
- Decision date
- 4 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch RESERVED
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hewitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Williamson and Mr Hewitt were dismissed by The Catering Design House Limited on 1 July 2020. Their claims against the First Respondent were withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal, and Mr Hewitt's unlawful deduction from wages claim was also withdrawn. The tribunal heard evidence about CDH's work on projects for Kier Construction, Balfour Beatty and Interserve, and about the steps taken by the Airedale Group in early July 2020 when CDH was being considered for liquidation.
On insolvency, the tribunal held that reg 8(7) TUPE did not apply on 1 July 2020 because the CVL only commenced when the members passed the winding-up resolution on 22 July 2020. It found that CDH's activities were designing, bidding for and managing kitchen installation work, and that those activities continued after 1 July 2020 through staff employed by the Second Respondent on the Manchester University, Wootton Park and Putteridge High projects. The tribunal rejected the case that the post-1 July activities were fundamentally different or limited to a single short-term task, and held that there had been a service provision change and a failure to inform and consult under reg 13 TUPE.
On dismissal, the tribunal rejected the Second Respondent's redundancy and Polkey arguments. It found no evidence of an ETO reason entailing a change in the workforce and no redundancy selection exercise, so both unfair dismissal claims were upheld. The tribunal also upheld both notice-pay claims, noting the contractual six-month notice periods and that each claimant had already received £2,326.80 from the Redundancy Payment Service. Mr Williamson's unpaid expenses claim for May and June 2020 was separately upheld in the sum of £1,216.71, and the remaining remedies were left for a later remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claims against the First Respondent were withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal; it does not break those claims down further in the dispositive order. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Mr Hewitt withdrew his unlawful deduction from wages claim, and it was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Williamson's unfair dismissal claim was upheld after the tribunal rejected the redundancy and Polkey arguments in relation to his dismissal on 1 July 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Mr Williamson's notice-pay claim was upheld; the tribunal found he was entitled to six months' notice under his service agreement and noted that he had already received £2,326.80 from the Redundancy Payment Service. | Upheld | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Mr Williamson succeeded on the TUPE failure-to-inform-and-consult claim under reg 13. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Hewitt's unfair dismissal claim was upheld after the tribunal rejected the redundancy and Polkey arguments in relation to his dismissal on 1 July 2020. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,217
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
9 references- Reg 3(1)(b) TUPE 2006
- Reg 8(7) TUPE 2006
- Reg 13 TUPE 2006
- s.86 Insolvency Act 1986
- Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Slater
- Litster v Forth Dry Dock
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services
- Compass Group PLC v Ayodele
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.