Case 1404970/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In Person First v No appearance Second Respondent: Ms J. Hounsell (HR Director) — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404970/2019
- Decision date
- 7 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that on 24 April 2019 the claimant's employment as a post office assistant transferred from the first respondent to the second respondent pursuant to a service provision change within the meaning of regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) of the TUPE Regulations 2006. It declared that the claimant's employment with the second respondent has continuity stretching back to 1 July 2002.
As part of the resulting relief, the tribunal ordered the second respondent to issue the claimant with a contract of employment recording that continuity within 14 days. The claimant's claim for a redundancy payment against the first respondent was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found that on 24 April 2019 the claimant's employment as a post office assistant transferred from the first respondent to the second respondent pursuant to a service provision change within regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) of the TUPE Regulations 2006. It declared that the claimant's employment with the second respondent has continuity stretching back to 1 July 2002 and ordered the second respondent to issue a contract of employment recording that continuity within 14 days. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant's claim for a redundancy payment against the first respondent was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) of the TUPE Regulations 2006
- service provision change
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.