Case 1802157/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Dunn Second Claimant: Mr C Dunn v RDW Book and Conservation Limited PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802157/2019
- Decision date
- 26 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Dunn Second Claimant: Mr C Dunn
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing in Leeds on 24, 25 and 26 August 2020, Employment Judge Shepherd found that there was a transfer from Riley Dunn and Wilson Limited to RDW Book and Conservation Limited within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 on or about 21 January 2019. The tribunal then considered whether the first and second claimants were assigned to the economic entity or organised group of resources that transferred immediately before the transfer.
The tribunal concluded that the claimants were not so assigned. In those circumstances, the claims against the respondent were dismissed. The respondent's application for costs against the claimants was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found there was a transfer from Riley Dunn and Wilson Limited to the respondent within the meaning of TUPE on or about 21 January 2019, but it also found that the first and second claimants were not assigned to the economic entity or organised group of resources that transferred immediately before the transfer. On that basis, the claims against the respondent were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 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.
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.