Case 1802009/2019 · Employment Tribunal
1. Mr P Addyman-Yates 2. Mr P Baranowski 3. Mr J Gunnee 4. Mr P Atkinson 5. Mr D Goulder 6. Mr D Wayman 7. Mr G Tamas 8. Mr T Hibbitt 9. Mr D Moar 10. Mr J Robinson v Rock and Bone Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) and 4 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 1802009/2019
- Decision date
- 4 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
6 namedClaimant
1. Mr P Addyman-Yates 2. Mr P Baranowski 3. Mr J Gunnee 4. Mr P Atkinson 5. Mr D Goulder 6. Mr D Wayman 7. Mr G Tamas 8. Mr T Hibbitt 9. Mr D Moar 10. Mr J Robinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that all Claimants were expressly dismissed by the First Respondent with effect from 21 February 2019 and that the reason for dismissal was redundancy. The First Respondent's requirement for employees to do the work the Claimants had been doing had ceased, and there was no evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of redundancy.
The central disputed issue was whether there had been a relevant TUPE transfer to LaRock Ltd, LaRock Construction Ltd or Mr Lawrence. The tribunal found that the Fourth Respondent played no part in events and that none of the Claimants was personally employed by Mr Lawrence, so the only possible transfer was to the Third Respondent. Applying the principles in Cheesman v R Brewer Contracts Ltd, it concluded that the First Respondent's economic entity had ceased to exist and that the new operation was fundamentally different.
The tribunal noted factors pointing towards a transfer, including the employment of a substantial proportion of the former workforce by another of Mr Lawrence's companies and use of part of the same premises. However, it found that the work, premises, assets, customers and business activity were materially different: the specialist machinery and customers did not transfer, and the former high-end bespoke residential furniture operation did not continue or resume. Accordingly, there was no relevant transfer, the claims against the Third to Fifth Respondents were dismissed, and the claims for redundancy payments, unauthorised deductions, holiday pay and notice pay succeeded in principle against the First and/or Second Respondents, with amounts still to be determined.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Robinson's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed on withdrawal by him. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Eighth Claimant's unfair dismissal claim against the First Respondent succeeded, but the tribunal stated that no additional compensation would be payable. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal declared that each Claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claims for unauthorised deduction from wages against the First and/or Second Respondents succeeded in principle, with amounts remaining to be determined. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claims against the First and/or Second Respondents succeeded in principle, with amounts remaining to be determined. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claims against the First and/or Second Respondents succeeded in principle, with amounts remaining to be determined. |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s 163(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- Regulation 3(1)(a) TUPE
- Regulation 4 TUPE
- Regulation 8 TUPE
- Cheesman v R Brewer Contracts Ltd [2001] IRLR 144
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.