Case 1811232/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Clay, Solicitor 2nd Claimant: In person 3rd Claimant: In Person 4th Claimant In person 1st v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 1811232/2018
- Decision date
- 20 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr I Clay, Solicitor 2nd Claimant: In person 3rd Claimant: In Person 4th Claimant In person 1st
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether there had been a transfer of the undertaking carried out by The Animal Ark Pet Store Ltd to Paw Prints Pet Supplies Ltd.
The tribunal held that there was a transfer of the undertaking from the first respondent to the third respondent. It found that the transfer was pursuant to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 and occurred on or around 21 August 2018.
The written judgment records only that preliminary issue. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no remedy or determination of the other listed claims is set out in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The preliminary hearing judgment decided that there was a transfer of the undertaking from the first respondent to the third respondent pursuant to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. It did not determine the listed unfair dismissal, redundancy, breach of contract, wages, or working time claims. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
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.
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.