Case 2200020/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Pugh v Rendall and Rittner — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200020/2020
- Decision date
- 22 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Pugh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Mr H Pugh withdrew his complaint under Regulation 11 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. That complaint was described as a failure to notify a change in the identity of his employer and the date of continuous service, and it was dismissed on withdrawal.
The judgment also records that Mr Pugh withdrew his complaint under section 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, described as a failure to provide a statement of changes. That complaint was also dismissed on withdrawal.
No remedy was recorded for the withdrawn complaints. The judgment states that the remaining complaints in the claim proceed to a hearing, so no outcome is recorded for those remaining complaints in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Complaint under Regulation 11 Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, described as failure to notify a change in the identity of the employer and date of continuous service, was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | Complaint under section 4 Employment Rights Act 1996, described as failure to provide a statement of changes, was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 11 Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- section 4 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.