Case 2213187/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Hunt v W1 Hardware Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2213187/2023
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Hunt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was a preliminary issue on whether Mr Hunt transferred to W1 Hardware Limited on or after 7 January 2023 under regulation 3(1)(a) TUPE following the alleged purchase of F.S. Blake & Sons Limited. The tribunal found that FS Blake was not sold to W1 Hardware Limited: the share purchase agreement showed a share sale to Saz Bek and Pasar Saleh, and there was no documentation or oral evidence of any subsequent acquisition of the business by W1 Hardware Limited.
The tribunal accepted that W1 Hardware Limited paid Mr Hunt's wages and SSP between January and March 2023 and later issued a P45 naming it as employer. It found those arrangements were explained by payroll practicalities while FS Blake lacked PAYE facilities, and that they did not show W1 Hardware Limited had taken over the day-to-day running of Blakes of Belgravia or stepped into the shoes of the employer. Mr Kawa's involvement was more likely in his capacity as a director of FS Blake than on behalf of W1 Hardware Limited.
Because there was no transfer to W1 Hardware Limited, all of Mr Hunt's claims against that respondent were dismissed. The tribunal also refused to add FS Blake as a substitute respondent under rule 35, citing delay, unfairness to FS Blake, and the overriding objective. The judgment records that section 218 ERA 1996 was not pursued, and the tribunal did not reach the merits of the dismissal, contract, wages, working time, or disability discrimination allegations.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on the preliminary TUPE issue; the tribunal did not determine the substantive merits because it found no transfer to W1 Hardware Limited. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed on the preliminary TUPE issue; the tribunal did not determine the substantive merits because it found no transfer to W1 Hardware Limited. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed on the preliminary TUPE issue; the tribunal did not determine the substantive merits because it found no transfer to W1 Hardware Limited. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed on the preliminary TUPE issue; the tribunal did not determine the substantive merits because it found no transfer to W1 Hardware Limited. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed on the preliminary TUPE issue; the tribunal did not determine the substantive merits because it found no transfer to W1 Hardware Limited. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Regulation 3(1)(a) TUPE 2006
- transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity
- Brookes and ors v Borough Care Services Ltd
- Print Factory (London) 1991 Ltd v Millam
- Jackson Lloyd Ltd and anor v Smith
- ICAP Management Services Ltd v Berry
- Rule 35
- overriding objective
- interests of justice
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.