Case 1604106/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Powell (1) Mr J Williams (2) Mr D Joshua (3) Mr C Joseph (4) v Domestic Sprinklers Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1604106/2024
- Decision date
- 28 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss R Powell (1) Mr J Williams (2) Mr D Joshua (3) Mr C Joseph (4)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded a consent judgment that there was a relevant transfer for the purposes of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 from the First Respondent to the Second Respondent on 1 May 2024.
The judgment stated that the transfer did not terminate any claimant's contract of employment and recorded the effect of Regulation 4 TUPE on rights, powers, duties and liabilities. The claims for notice pay, accrued untaken holiday pay and redundancy payments were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Consent judgment recorded that there was a relevant transfer for TUPE purposes from the First Respondent to the Second Respondent on 1 May 2024 and that Regulation 4 transferred rights, powers, duties and liabilities. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim for notice pay was dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for accrued untaken holiday pay was dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim for redundancy payments was dismissed by consent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 4 TUPE
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.