Case 1803864/2020 · Employment Tribunal
L Porter v Kingdom Services Group Limited and 2 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803864/2020
- Decision date
- 31 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Panel members
- H Brown, N Arshad-Mather
Parties
4 namedClaimant
L Porter
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claim against the First Respondent for failure to inform or consult under regulations 13 and 15 of the TUPE Regulations 2006. It also dismissed the references under sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against the First and Second Respondents as out of time.
The Tribunal found that an identifiable and separate part of the Claimant's contract transferred to the Second Respondent on 1 April 2020 under regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) of the TUPE Regulations 2006. The unfair dismissal and/or automatically unfair dismissal claim against the Second Respondent was dismissed because it was not presented in time when it would have been reasonably practicable to do so.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy by the Second Respondent and awarded a statutory redundancy payment of £1,034.46, calculated by reference to 9 weeks' pay. It found that the Claimant was not dismissed by the Third Respondent, so the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims against the Third Respondent were not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Claim against the First Respondent for failure to inform or consult under regulations 13 and 15 of the TUPE Regulations 2006 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | References under sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 against the First and Second Respondents were dismissed as out of time; the Tribunal also stated that, as against the Second Respondent, there was necessarily never any agreement between the parties as to the terms of a contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claims for unfair dismissal and/or automatically unfair dismissal against the Second Respondent were dismissed as not presented in time when it would have been reasonably practicable to do so; any such claims against the Third Respondent were not well-founded because the Claimant was not dismissed by the Third Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The Tribunal found that an identifiable and separate part of the Claimant's contract transferred to the Second Respondent on 1 April 2020 under regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) of the TUPE Regulations 2006. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal found that the Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy by the Second Respondent and ordered a statutory redundancy payment of £1,034.46. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,034
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- regulations 13 and 15 of the TUPE Regulations 2006
- sections 11 and 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) of the TUPE Regulations 2006
- reasonably practicable
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
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.