Case 1808427/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Farkas v Mr J Chung and 3 others — 2019

Case reference: 1808427/2018
Decision date: 3 October 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Maidment Representation
Venue: Hull

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

5 named

Claimant

Mr J Farkas

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At Hull on 27 September 2019, Employment Judge Maidment struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy payment, unlawful deductions from wages, breach of contract and accrued but untaken holiday entitlement complaints. The tribunal held that those claims would have lain only against the third respondent, The One (Hessle) Ltd, which had been dissolved and had not been restored to the Register of Companies.

The tribunal also found that the claimant's employment did not transfer to the fourth respondent, Bai Sheng Ke Limited, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. That meant the claims tied to the employment relationship against the dissolved third respondent could not proceed against the fourth respondent.

The race discrimination complaint against the first and second respondents was struck out because it had been brought outside the three-month time limit and the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time. The age discrimination complaint against the first and second respondents was dismissed after the claimant withdrew it. No monetary award was made.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out because the claim would only have lain against the third respondent, The One (Hessle) Ltd, which was a dissolved company not restored to the Register of Companies; the tribunal also recorded that the claimant's employment did not transfer to the fourth respondent under TUPE 2006.	Struck out	—	—
Redundancy	Struck out because the claim would only have lain against the third respondent, The One (Hessle) Ltd, which was a dissolved company not restored to the Register of Companies; the tribunal also recorded that the claimant's employment did not transfer to the fourth respondent under TUPE 2006.	Struck out	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	Struck out because the claim would only have lain against the third respondent, The One (Hessle) Ltd, which was a dissolved company not restored to the Register of Companies; the tribunal also recorded that the claimant's employment did not transfer to the fourth respondent under TUPE 2006.	Struck out	—	—
Breach of contract	Struck out because the claim would only have lain against the third respondent, The One (Hessle) Ltd, which was a dissolved company not restored to the Register of Companies; the tribunal also recorded that the claimant's employment did not transfer to the fourth respondent under TUPE 2006.	Struck out	—	—
Holiday pay	Struck out because the claim would only have lain against the third respondent, The One (Hessle) Ltd, which was a dissolved company not restored to the Register of Companies; the tribunal also recorded that the claimant's employment did not transfer to the fourth respondent under TUPE 2006.

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 PDF on gov.uk

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.