Case 1803771/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Kettlewell Mr S Winterburn v AGL Realisations Ltd (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803771/2021
- Decision date
- 11 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mrs J Lee, Mr M Taj
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Kettlewell Mr S Winterburn
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leeds on 11 October 2022 before Employment Judge Cox, sitting with Mrs J Lee and Mr M Taj. The Claimants were represented by a trade union legal officer. The First Respondent did not attend and was not represented, and the Second Respondent was represented by counsel.
The claim of failure to consult on collective redundancies was withdrawn by the Claimants and dismissed. The tribunal therefore did not determine that complaint on its merits.
The tribunal found that the First Respondent had failed to comply with Regulation 13 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. It ordered compensation of £4,380.48 to Mr Kettlewell and £4,153.44 to Mr Winterburn. The Second Respondent was held jointly and severally liable with the First Respondent for those sums.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim of failure to consult on collective redundancies was withdrawn by the Claimants and dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Complaint that the First Respondent failed to comply with Regulation 13 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 was well-founded. The First Respondent was ordered to pay £4,380.48 to Mr Kettlewell and £4,153.44 to Mr Winterburn, with the Second Respondent jointly and severally liable. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,534
- across all upheld claims
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.