Case 2208816/2022 · Employment Tribunal
The Nicest Pint Ltd v Caskaway Taverns Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208816/2022
- Decision date
- 5 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hussain Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
The Nicest Pint Ltd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 05 June 2023 at London South Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Hussain heard the claimant's complaint under Regulation 12 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. The respondent did not attend and was not represented.
The tribunal held that the complaint was well-founded because the respondent failed to provide the claimant with adequate information in relation to four employees. No separate legal test was set out in the written record beyond the Regulation 12 basis of the complaint.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £2,000 in compensation. The written record also states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The complaint was brought under Regulation 12 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. The tribunal found it well-founded because the respondent failed to provide adequate information in relation to four employees. | Upheld | — | £2,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,000
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,000
- 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.