Case 1602272/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M. Duffy (C1) Ms S. Murphy (C2) v Mr. B & Mrs S. Jones in partnership as Shelbourne Hotel (R) HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602272/2019
- Decision date
- 16 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M. Duffy (C1) Ms S. Murphy (C2)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningC1 had been the General Manager and C2 the Assistant or Deputy Manager at the Shelbourne Hotel for 19 and 18 years. After Mr and Mrs Jones bought the hotel on 26 March 2019, they moved in, issued new contracts containing probation, deduction, break, lay-off and holiday clauses that the claimants did not accept, and then changed the practical roles so that C1 was largely confined to cooking and C2 to cleaning, with guest-facing and management functions taken over by the respondents.
The tribunal found that those changes were substantial, went to the root of the employment relationship, and were materially detrimental. It held that the conduct destroyed trust and confidence, that the claimants did not affirm the contracts, and that they resigned only after the grievance and appeal process had failed. On that basis both were constructively unfairly dismissed, and the dismissals were also automatically unfair because they were caused by the TUPE transfer.
On notice, the tribunal held that the respondents had breached the contracts by dismissing without notice, but it awarded no notice pay because the claimants resigned summarily and Regulation 4(10) TUPE prevented damages for notice not worked. Remedy was agreed: C1 received a basic award of £11,812.50 and a compensatory award of £4,780.77, and C2 received a basic award of £8,996.40 and a compensatory award of £3,886.40; each compensatory award included £350 for loss of statutory rights. The tribunal limited loss to three months' wages, found no blameworthy conduct by the claimants, noted that recoupment did not apply to C1 but did apply to C2, and treated the claimants as being at risk of a fair dismissal or voluntary departure within that period.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Both C1 and C2 were found to have been constructively unfairly dismissed. The tribunal also held that the dismissals were automatically unfair because they followed the TUPE transfer and the respondents imposed substantial changes to roles and terms. | Upheld | — | £29,476 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondents breached the contracts by dismissing without notice, but it awarded NIL notice pay because the claimants resigned summarily and Regulation 4(10) TUPE prevented damages for the notice period not worked. | Upheld | — | £0 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £29,476
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £20,809
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,667
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hosp [2018] EWCA Civ 978
- Omilaju
- Malik implied term of trust and confidence
- Tapere v South London & Maudsley NHS Trust
- TUPE Reg 4(9)
- TUPE Reg 4(10)
- TUPE Reg 7
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.122 ERA 1996
- s.123 ERA 1996
- Polkey reduction
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.