Case 1803557/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Robinsons M&E Ltd (in administration) and Robinsons MEA Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803557/2019
- Decision date
- 3 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Jackson and Mr J Lee brought claims against Robinsons M&E Limited (in administration) and Robinsons MEA Limited. The tribunal heard the case by CVP on 18, 19 and 20 January 2021 and 25 February 2021 before Employment Judge Little. The judgment records that each claimant's holiday pay complaint was dismissed on withdrawal.
On status, the tribunal found that both claimants were employees of the first respondent at all material times and that each had sufficient qualifying employment to bring complaints of unfair dismissal. It also found that there was a relevant transfer of the undertaking of the first respondent to the second respondent on 15 August 2019.
The automatically unfair dismissal complaints under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that the sole or principal reason for the claimants' dismissals by the first respondent was the transfer. The judgment notes that the claim was stayed as against the first respondent.
On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal stated that whatever the merits of the complaint, the second respondent could not have potential liability for it. The judgment does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that each claimant's holiday pay complaint was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found there was a relevant transfer of the undertaking on 15 August 2019, but held that the automatically unfair dismissal complaints under the TUPE Regulations 2006 failed because the sole or principal reason for the dismissals by the first respondent was not the transfer. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment does not determine the merits of the wrongful dismissal complaint. It states that, whatever those merits, the second respondent could not have potential liability for it, and the claim was stayed as against the first respondent. | Other | — | — |
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.