Case 2202415/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v City Financial Investment Company Ltd (in administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202415/2019
- Decision date
- 24 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JL Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment after the respondent failed to file ET3 Grounds of Resistance. Employment Judge JL Wade considered the ET1 and decided the claim could properly be determined without a hearing.
The tribunal held that the respondent had unlawfully failed to comply with requirements in both regulation 13 and regulation 14 of the TUPE Regulations 2006. It therefore upheld the TUPE claim and ordered the respondent to pay appropriate compensation to the claimant.
The compensation ordered was £30,000. The judgment records no separate breakdown of that figure into different heads of loss and no further reasoning beyond the Rule 21 determination.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Rule 21 judgment. The tribunal found the respondent had unlawfully failed to comply with requirements in regulations 13 and 14 of the TUPE Regulations 2006 and ordered compensation of £30,000. | Upheld | — | £30,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £30,000
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £30,000
- compensatory remedy recorded
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.