Case 1404370/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms H Suleman, Peninsula — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404370/2023
- Decision date
- 19 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Alisa Dyer worked as Front of House at the Watermill Inn from 16 May 2018 until 28 June 2023, when the respondent's tenancy of the pub ended and new tenants took over on or about 3 July 2023. The tribunal found that there was a TUPE transfer and that both the outgoing and incoming operators made some consultation efforts, although those efforts were not as full as they should have been and probably would not have complied with the TUPE consultation provisions. The claimant was aware that a transfer to the new tenant was being arranged, including from WhatsApp messages and the planned meeting with the new tenants.
The central issue was whether the claimant had been dismissed or had instead chosen not to transfer. The tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence, accepted that Mr Lucas did not tell the claimant that her employment had ended, and found that there was no communication of dismissal. It also found that the claimant did not attend the staff meeting on 3 July 2023, where the other employees were told that their employment had transferred under TUPE on unchanged terms and conditions, and that she would have been welcome to continue working for the new tenant.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant had effectively resigned her employment by choosing not to remain with the transferee. Because there had been no dismissal, the claim for a statutory redundancy payment failed. For the same reason, the claim for breach of contract in respect of notice pay also failed, since article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 did not assist the claimant where the respondent had not dismissed her. Both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant had not been dismissed by reason of redundancy. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was dismissed because the tribunal found the respondent had not dismissed the claimant and she was therefore not entitled to damages for lost notice period. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- Employment Rights Act 1996
- article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.