Case 1401958/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Sinclair v 1 Sure Healthcare (Group) Limited 2 City and County Healthcare Group Limited 3 London Care Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401958/2018
- Decision date
- 16 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Members
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Dr N Thornback, Mr G Crowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Sinclair
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Sinclair worked for London Care on the Borough of Poole Extra Care contract at Belmont Court, Delphis Court and Trinidad Village. The tribunal found that the contract moved to Sure on 8 February 2018, that there was a service provision change under TUPE, and that Mrs Sinclair was assigned to the organised grouping of employees carrying out the relevant activities. It therefore concluded that she should have transferred to Sure, and it dismissed the second respondent from the proceedings by agreement.
The tribunal also found a breach of the duty to inform and consult under reg 13 TUPE 2006. Sure had decided by 5 January 2018 that Mrs Sinclair would not transfer, but that position was not communicated to her until 16 January 2018. Given the short period between the first meeting with staff and the transfer date, the tribunal held that the delay significantly prejudiced her ability to take advice and consider her position. It made a protective award of four weeks' pay, quantified at £1,762.76.
Sure conceded that Mrs Sinclair had been unfairly dismissed and that she was entitled to holiday accrued and untaken. The tribunal therefore made a basic award of £13,692 and a compensatory award of £28,500 for unfair dismissal, with the Recoupment Regulations applying and the prescribed element identified as £28,500. It also awarded £308.49 for holiday pay.
The tribunal rejected Mrs Sinclair's claim for an enhanced redundancy payment. It held that although she had signed a contract in 2008 containing a severance term, the April 2015 contract expressly superseded earlier agreements and did not preserve that entitlement. The total monetary awards recorded in the judgment were £1,762.76, £13,692, £28,500 and £308.49.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found Mrs Sinclair was assigned to the organised grouping for the Borough of Poole Extra Care contract and should have transferred on 8 February 2018. It also found a breach of the duty to inform and consult under reg 13 TUPE 2006 and made a protective award of four weeks' pay against the first and third respondents. | Upheld | — | £1,763 |
| Unfair dismissal | Sure conceded unfair dismissal. The tribunal made a basic award of £13,692 and a compensatory award of £28,500, with the Recoupment Regulations applying and the relevant period running from 8 February 2018 to 5 December 2019. | Upheld | — | £42,192 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal rejected the claim for an enhanced redundancy payment. It held that the April 2015 contract expressly superseded the 2008 contract and did not preserve the earlier enhanced redundancy entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found a payment was due in respect of holiday accrued and untaken and awarded £308.49 against Sure. | Upheld | — | £308 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £44,263
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £13,692
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £28,500
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- reg 3 TUPE 2006
- reg 4 TUPE 2006
- reg 13 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.