Case 1401653/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Lechowicz v Single Resource Ltd and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401653/2019
- Decision date
- 4 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Dated
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss A Lechowicz
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss A Lechowicz, had agreed that a TUPE transfer took place between Single Resource Ltd and Pro-Force Ltd on 3 February 2019, and that fact was agreed by all three parties. On that basis, the tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims for holiday pay and arrears of pay belonged against the second respondent rather than the first respondent.
The tribunal held that Single Resource Ltd had been wrongly included as a respondent. It therefore struck out the claims against the first respondent only under Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success against that respondent. The judgment does not determine the merits of the underlying pay claims against Pro-Force Ltd.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Claim against the first respondent only was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the parties agreed there had been a TUPE transfer to the second respondent on 3 February 2019, so the holiday pay claim lay against the second respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim against the first respondent only was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the parties agreed there had been a TUPE transfer to the second respondent on 3 February 2019, so the arrears of pay claim lay against the second respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(a)
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.