Case 1405184/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jonathan Dunne v The Taunton Cider Company Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1405184/2023
- Decision date
- 8 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Midgley, sitting alone, gave a preliminary judgment determining a TUPE transfer issue. The claimant brought claims of automatically unfair dismissal under Regulation 7(1) TUPE, ordinary unfair dismissal under s.111 ERA 1996, breach of contract for notice pay, and failure to inform/consult under Regulations 13-15 TUPE.
The judge concluded that the claimant's employment transferred from the First Respondent (Taunton Cider Company Limited, in creditors' voluntary liquidation) to the Second Respondent (Heritage Cider Limited) under Regulations 3 and 4 TUPE 2006 on 10 May 2023, and that all liabilities for any dismissal connected with the transfer transferred to Heritage. The judge found that immediately before the transfer the claimant was assigned to the part of the undertaking concerned with the marketing and retail of ciders, that this activity transferred to Heritage which began trading on 10 May 2023, and that arguments about asset ownership and the brief gap between the cessation of the transferor's activities and the commencement of the transferee's activities did not prevent a transfer (applying Cheesman and Celtec v Astley).
Heritage conceded that the case did not fall within Regulation 8(6) or 8(7) TUPE. The reason for dismissal and any ETO defence were not before the tribunal at this preliminary hearing and remain to be determined at a final hearing. The PDF was truncated at 15,000 of 61,642 characters.
Claims and outcomes
1 claim adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.