Case 2201304/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P P Ponzi v 1 Lewis & Graves Partnership Ltd 2 Pendergate Ltd t/a Kindred 3 St Mary’s & St John’s CE School — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201304/2022
- Decision date
- 1 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge H Grewal Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P P Ponzi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant worked for R2 on two supervisor contracts for the Bennett House and Stamford Raffles sites, and later held a fixed-term sixth-form cleaning role with R3. In 2021 R1 won the whole-school cleaning contract and the parties accepted that the R2 cleaning workforce transferred to R1 on 1 August 2021. The Claimant said she had been dismissed by R3’s letter of 21 July 2021, but the Tribunal found that the only unfair dismissal complaint was against R3 and that she did not have two years’ service with R3; she had no unfair dismissal complaint against R1 or R2 because she was not alleging actual or constructive dismissal by either of them.
The race discrimination complaint concerned events on 19 and 20 July 2021 and 16 August 2021 involving staff said to be from R2 and R1. The Tribunal held that any liability of R2 for the 19 July 2021 incident transferred to R1 under regulation 4(2) TUPE, so R2 was no longer liable for that act. It then held that the discrimination complaints were out of time. The claim form was treated as presented on 15 March 2022, and the Tribunal concluded that the time limits under section 123 Equality Act 2010, read with section 140B, had expired and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
On the TUPE consultation issue, the Tribunal accepted that the Claimant’s particulars complained that she had not been consulted about the transfer from R2 to R1 under regulation 13 TUPE. It held that the complaint was not presented in time and that it was not reasonably practicable for it to have been lodged earlier. The Tribunal removed R2 and R3 as respondents because no live claims remained against them. The separate pay allegations were not determined at this hearing: the Tribunal listed a further hearing for the Claimant’s unauthorised deductions from wages complaint against R1.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Claimant said she was dismissed by R3’s letter of 21 July 2021, effective 31 August 2021. The Tribunal held the only unfair dismissal complaint was against R3, but she did not have two years’ continuous service with R3, and she had no unfair dismissal complaint against R1 or R2 because she was not alleging actual or constructive dismissal by either of them. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Claimant relied on incidents on 19, 20 July 2021 and 16 August 2021. The Tribunal held R2’s liability for the 19 July act transferred to R1 under regulation 4(2) TUPE, and that the race complaints against R1 were out of time; it refused a just and equitable extension because the delay was not explained by health or the pandemic to the Tribunal’s satisfaction. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The Claimant’s particulars were treated as including a complaint that she had not been consulted about the transfer of her R2 cleaning contract to R1 under regulation 13 TUPE. The Tribunal held the complaint was out of time and that it was not reasonably practicable for it to have been presented earlier. Paragraph 34 refers to a complaint against R1, but the surrounding reasoning indicates the transferor/R2 was the intended respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was dismissed because the Claimant had no live notice-pay complaint against R1 or R2, and the Tribunal did not accept that any viable notice-pay claim remained against R3 on the basis pleaded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- regulation 4(2) TUPE Regulations 2006
- DJM International Ltd v Nicholas [1996] IRLR 76
- Clarke v Mediguard Services Ltd [2000] NI 73
- section 123(1) Equality Act 2010
- section 140B Equality Act 2010
- regulation 13 TUPE Regulations 2006
- regulation 15 TUPE Regulations 2006
- regulation 16A TUPE Regulations 2006
- rule 8(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Presidential Practice Direction (2 March 2020)
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.