Case 1401441/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bowen v Reuseaworld Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401441/2023
- Decision date
- 29 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macey Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bowen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Bowen was employed by Reuseaworld Ltd as a collections driver from 1 March 2018 to 18 January 2023. The tribunal found that the collections element of the Reuseabook business was a sufficiently structured and autonomous part of the undertaking, and that it transferred to CTR on 18 January 2023 under TUPE. Applying the Spijkers factors, the tribunal found the activity continued without interruption, the majority of the driver team transferred, and the collections work remained materially the same after transfer.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for a statutory redundancy payment failed because the tribunal found there was a TUPE transfer of the collections part of the Reuseabook business to CTR on 18 January 2023, the claimant objected to transfer, and the change in pay/payment frequency was not a substantial change in working conditions to his material detriment. The tribunal also found there was no offer and acceptance of redundancy payment in December 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim failed because the claimant was not treated as dismissed by the respondent; under regulation 4(8) TUPE the transfer terminated the contract but he was not to be treated as dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 135 ERA 1996
- section 95 ERA 1996
- regulation 3 TUPE 2006
- Cheesman v R Brewer Contracts Ltd two-limb test
- Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd v Wilcox
- Spijkers factors
- regulation 4 TUPE 2006
- regulation 13 TUPE 2006
- regulation 13A TUPE 2006
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.