Case 1802442/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Taylor and others (see attached schedule) v Inspire 2 Independence (i2i) Ltd (in administration) Heard: Remote hearing On: 16 April 2020 — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802442/2019
- Decision date
- 16 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Panel members
- Ms J Lancaster, Mr M Taj
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Taylor and others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was the final matter in a multiple-case arising out of redundancies and transfers of staff following a business administration. The hearing on 16 April 2020 was conducted remotely by telephone on the papers only; neither side was required to attend and no written representations were received.
The tribunal recorded that it had already declared the claimants' TUPE Regulation 15(1) complaint to be well founded. In this remedy judgment it ordered the respondent to pay compensatory sums calculated as eight weeks' gross pay for each claimant named in the attached schedule.
The amounts awarded were £4,176 to Miss E Taylor, £3,430 to Miss AJ Barker, £3,423 to Mrs K Fletcher, and £3,462 each to Mrs V Cross and Mr G Hicks, making a total of £17,953.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Earlier declaration that the TUPE Regulation 15(1) complaint was well founded; this remedy judgment awarded eight weeks' gross pay to each claimant on the attached schedule. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,953
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £17,953
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- TUPE Regulation 15(1)
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.