Case 2202334/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Dhesi v Alacra Inc — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202334/2019
- Decision date
- 25 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Dhesi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 22 January 2020, Employment Judge Emery held that there was a TUPE transfer on 10 December 2018 when Hiperos was sold to Coupa. The tribunal accepted that the claimant, Mrs N Dhesi, had reasonable prospects of showing that she was an affected employee for the purposes of regulation 13(1), finding that she had been working as a Project Leader on Hiperos projects until shortly before maternity leave, including work described as cover for NW, and that she remained engaged on those projects as the work reduced during commissioning.
The tribunal also found that the TUPE complaint was outside the primary three-month limitation period, which expired on 9 March 2019, but that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim in time because she was on maternity leave, had no access to work email, and did not learn of the transfer until 14 March 2019. It further found that the claim was issued within a reasonable period afterwards, noting the ACAS conciliation process and the issue of the claim on 16 June 2019.
No final determination was made at this hearing on the substantive failure-to-inform-or-consult complaint. The judgment records that the matter remained listed for a final hearing and that earlier case management orders remained in force.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found there was a TUPE transfer on 10 December 2018, that the claimant had reasonable prospects of showing she was an affected employee, and that the TUPE complaint was presented in time because late presentation was not reasonably practicable and the claim was brought within a reasonable further period. No final determination was made on the underlying inform-and-consult complaint at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- TUPE Reg 13(1)
- TUPE Reg 15(12)
- I Lab Facilities Ltd v Metcalfe and others
- Machine Tool Industry Research Association v Simpson
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.