Case 1404035/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matthew Barnes v Shop@theShip Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404035/2021
- Decision date
- 28 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gibb Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Matthew Barnes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that on 29 June 2021 Mr Matthew Barnes was TUPE transferred to Shop@theShip Limited under Regulations 3(1)(b)(ii) and (3) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 2006. It then held that he was automatically unfairly dismissed pursuant to Regulation 7 of TUPE.
The written record is brief and records that reasons were given orally at the hearing. The decision therefore states the dispositive findings without setting out a fuller written analysis in the judgment text provided.
On remedy, the respondent was ordered to pay £4,866.36 in total. That sum comprised a basic award of £3,845.60, a compensatory award of £620.76, and £400 for loss of statutory rights.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was TUPE transferred to the respondent on 29 June 2021 and was automatically unfairly dismissed pursuant to Regulation 7 of TUPE. | Upheld | — | £4,866 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,866
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £3,846
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £621
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulations 3(1)(b)(ii) and (3) of TUPE 2006
- Regulation 7 of TUPE
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.