Case 1403078/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Bourne & 19 Others v Raleigh Property Transformations Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 2 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403078/2018
- Decision date
- 5 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
4 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the claimants' claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract in respect of notice pay, unlawful deduction of wages and holiday pay. It found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented within the primary time limit, and that they were issued within a reasonable period thereafter.
The Tribunal found that there was a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of Regulation 4 TUPE 2006 on 16 May 2018 between Raleigh Property Transformations Ltd and The Bespoke Building Company (Devon) Ltd. It also found that the transfer occurred before an insolvency practitioner acted on behalf of the First Respondent within the meaning of section 388 of the Insolvency Act, so Regulation 8 TUPE 2006 did not apply.
The application to amend the claims to add a claim under Regulation 15 TUPE 2006 was withdrawn. The claims against the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy were dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
7 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 | The judgment records that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claims because it was not reasonably practicable to present them within the primary time limit and they were issued within a reasonable period thereafter. It does not record a merits outcome. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records jurisdiction to hear breach of contract claims for notice pay, but does not record a merits outcome or remedy. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records jurisdiction to hear unlawful deduction of wages claims, but does not record a merits outcome or remedy. | Other | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records jurisdiction to hear holiday pay claims, but does not record a merits outcome or remedy. | Other | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The Tribunal found there was a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of Regulation 4 TUPE 2006 on 16 May 2018 between the First Respondent and the Second Respondent, and that Regulation 8 TUPE 2006 did not apply. | Upheld | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) |
Legal tests applied
4 references- not reasonably practicable
- Regulation 4 TUPE 2006
- Regulation 8 TUPE 2006
- s.388 of the Insolvency Act
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.