Case 1601409/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ian Read v Adventure Risk Management Services Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601409/2020
- Decision date
- 23 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Webb Representation
- Venue
- by video
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Ian Read
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningHeard by video on 22-23 March 2021 before Employment Judge N Webb, the tribunal held that there was a relevant transfer within Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 on 1 April 2020 from Tourism Quality Services Limited to Adventure Risk Management Services Limited.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim against Tourism Quality Services Limited, identified in the judgment as the second respondent. It also dismissed the claimant's unpaid wages claim against the second respondent.
The written record contains only the operative judgment and does not record any monetary award. No compensation, wages, or other remedy is set out in the decision text provided.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal held that there was a relevant transfer within Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 on 1 April 2020 from Tourism Quality Services Limited to Adventure Risk Management Services Limited. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim against the second respondent was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unpaid wages claim against the second respondent was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 3(1)(b) TUPE 2006
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.