Case 1401320/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Rachel March v 1) Whipcoot Developments Limited 2) Whipcott Getaways Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401320/2022
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray-Jones Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rachel March
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal amended the named respondents to Whipcoot Developments Limited and Whipcott Getaways Limited. It found that the Claimant's employment transferred from the First Respondent to the Second Respondent on 20 December 2021 under Regulation 4 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. On that basis, the unfair dismissal, notice pay and statutory redundancy payment claims against the First Respondent were dismissed.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed by the Second Respondent. It held that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the transfer, and not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes to the workforce, so the unfair dismissal claim against the Second Respondent succeeded. It also found that the Claimant was dismissed without the period of notice required by section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the breach of contract claim for notice pay against the Second Respondent was well founded.
The statutory redundancy payment claim was dismissed. The judgment states that the reasons on remedy were dealt with in a separate judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Against the First Respondent. Dismissed because the Claimant's employment had transferred to the Second Respondent on 20 December 2021 under Regulation 4 of TUPE 2006. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim against the First Respondent. Dismissed in paragraph 3. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment claim dismissed. Paragraph 3 dismisses it against the First Respondent and paragraph 6 states that the claim for a statutory redundancy payment is dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Against the Second Respondent. The tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed by the Second Respondent and that the reason or principal reason was the transfer, not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes to the workforce. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim against the Second Respondent. The Claimant was dismissed without the period of notice required by section 86 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the claim was well founded. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 4 TUPE 2006
- s.86 Employment Rights Act 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.