Case 1401208/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Gurwinder Singh Padda v Hamble Foods Ltd and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401208/2023
- Decision date
- 9 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richardson Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Gurwinder Singh Padda
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether Gurwinder Singh Padda was an employee throughout the relevant period, whether he had the continuity of service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and whether there had been a TUPE transfer between Eastleigh, Admas and Hamble. The respondents accepted at the start of the hearing that the claimant remained an employee, but disputed continuity and the transfer history. The tribunal considered the reality of the position by reference to Autoclenz, Regulation 3(1)(b) of TUPE, sections 218 and 231 of the ERA 1996, and the statutory presumption of continuity in section 210(5).
The tribunal found that the claimant continued to do the same area or operations manager role throughout the period in question. It preferred his evidence to Mr Khattar's on key points, including the absence of any resignation documents, job adverts or interview records, the absence of any explanation from Mr Hussain, and the inconsistency of the documentary record. The WhatsApp messages were treated as consistent with an operational role, not consultancy work, and the tribunal found the Admas payslips and P45 evidence did not show a genuine change of employer. On the tribunal's findings, the Admas arrangement was a temporary payroll arrangement linked to cashflow difficulties during the pandemic.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant remained employed by Eastleigh until he was transferred with other employees to Hamble around February or March 2021. If that conclusion was wrong, the tribunal said there would in any event have been a transfer from Eastleigh to Admas and then from Admas to Hamble. The claimant therefore had two years' continuous service, and the only respondent for the proceedings should be Hamble Foods Ltd. The tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims against MKD Holdings Ltd, PJ Eastleigh Ltd or Admas Services Ltd, but it did have jurisdiction to hear the claim against Hamble Foods Ltd. No remedy was determined at this stage.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found the claimant had two years' continuous service and that the only respondent for the proceedings should be Hamble Foods Ltd. No final merits decision on unfair dismissal or any monetary award was made. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Autoclenz v Belcher [2011] ICR 1157
- Regulation 3(1)(b) TUPE 2006
- s.218 ERA 1996
- s.231 ERA 1996
- s.210(5) ERA 1996
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.