Case 1401911/2024 · Employment Tribunal
- MS C THOMAS FOR THE v - Mr P Soni (lay Representative) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401911/2024
- Decision date
- 25 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
- MS C THOMAS FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for a statutory redundancy payment, notice pay, unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay against the Secretary of State for Business and Trade (R1) and Brewz Bar Ltd in creditors' voluntary liquidation (R2), seeking payment from the National Insurance Fund under s166/182 Employment Rights Act 1996. R2 did not participate. The tribunal first addressed a preliminary time-limit issue and held that the claims for notice pay, unpaid wages and holiday pay were presented approximately two months out of time; the claimant had been professionally represented well within the limitation period, ACAS Early Conciliation began only after the primary period expired, and the tribunal concluded it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claims in time and that they were not presented within a reasonable period thereafter.
On the redundancy claim, the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence as honest and reliable and found that she was an employee of the original company (Bangerz n Brewz Ltd) and subsequently of Brewz Bar Ltd (R2), and that she remained an employee of R2 up to the point of insolvency within the meaning of s230 ERA 1996. However, the tribunal found there had been no relevant transfer under Regulation 3(1)(a) TUPE between the companies because there was no transfer of an economic entity retaining its identity; the only step taken pursuant to the proposed transfer was the claimant moving to R2, and the businesses continued to trade as before.
Because continuity of employment did not transfer, the claimant's employment with R2 was treated as commencing on or about 1 April 2023, which was insufficient length of service to entitle her to a statutory redundancy payment. It followed that the claim against the Secretary of State under s166/182 ERA 1996 was not well founded and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed as presented out of time; tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present in time and the claim was not presented within a reasonable period thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unpaid wages claim dismissed as presented out of time on the same basis as the notice pay claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Unpaid holiday pay claim dismissed as presented out of time on the same basis as the notice pay claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Tribunal accepted the claimant was an employee of R2 (Brewz Bar Ltd) at the date of insolvency within the meaning of s230 ERA 1996, but found no qualifying TUPE transfer from the earlier company; employment with R2 commenced on or about 1 April 2023, giving insufficient continuity of service to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim against the Secretary of State (R1) under s166/182 Employment Rights Act 1996 for payments from the National Insurance Fund held not well founded and dismissed, consequent on the redundancy pay finding. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s230 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s166/182 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s188(1) and (2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable test (time limits)
- Regulation 3(1)(a) 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.