Case 2219737/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Shanice Buckley v Soho House (UK) Limited Heard via Cloud Video Platform (London Central) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2219737/2024
- Decision date
- 19 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Shanice Buckley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningShanice Buckley worked for Soho House (UK) Limited as a Soho Works General Manager at 180 The Strand. The tribunal found no contractual entitlement to a backdated 2% pay rise in 2022 and no contractual entitlement to a uniform allowance as pay or benefit. It also held that the contract wording about inclusion in the Soho House Bonus Scheme did not create a right to a particular bonus payment, so the claims for unlawful deductions from wages and breach of contract were dismissed.
On the redundancy payment issue, the tribunal found that the claimant's statutory redundancy payment had been correctly calculated. It held that the £300 uniform voucher did not form part of contractual pay and, in any event, would not have counted for the purposes of calculating a week's pay under the statutory scheme. The tribunal also noted that the claimant's weekly pay was above the statutory cap of £643.
The TUPE complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found there had been no relevant transfer and no service provision change. It concluded that Soho Works retained its economic identity, that bank accounts, leases, assets and staff arrangements had not transferred, and that the on-site oversight by a House general manager did not amount to a transfer of control of the Soho Works business.
The tribunal accepted that redundancy was the reason for dismissal and that the role removal was within the range of reasonable responses, but it found the dismissal unfair because the redundancy consultation was not genuine or meaningful. The claimant was warned only just over 48 hours before the first consultation meeting, the process was tightly time-limited, the respondent had not properly applied its mind to pooling or selection criteria, alternative employment was only limitedly explored, and there was no right of appeal. The tribunal held that a fair process would probably not have changed the outcome and therefore applied a 100% Polkey deduction to any compensatory award. No final monetary award was set out in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerned non-payment of an alleged 2% salary increase. The tribunal found there was no contractual entitlement to that increase and, alternatively, that the claimant had accepted the pay position by conduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim concerned alleged non-payment of bonus. The tribunal held the contract wording only supported inclusion in a bonus scheme and did not create an entitlement to a particular bonus payment or scheme terms. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim concerned the calculation of statutory redundancy pay. The tribunal found the £300 uniform allowance was not contractual and would not count as remuneration for a week's pay; it also noted the claimant's week's pay was above the statutory cap. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Claim concerned an alleged failure to inform and consult under TUPE. The tribunal found there was no relevant transfer and no service provision change; the Soho Works business retained its economic identity and the HGM oversight described in consultation did not amount to a transfer of control. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for redundancy and that reason was potentially fair, but the consultation process was procedurally unfair because the claimant was warned at very short notice, the process was tightly compressed, selection pool and criteria were not genuinely considered, alternative employment was only limitedly explored, and there was no appeal. The tribunal applied a 100% Polkey deduction to any compensatory award, but no monetary award was quantified in this judgment. |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s.13 ERA 1996
- Agnew series of deductions
- s.162 ERA 1996
- s.163 ERA 1996
- Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society
- Ostilly v Meridian Global VAT Services (UK) Ltd
- TUPE regulation 3
- Cheesman/Spijkers identity factors
- Rynda service provision change approach
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- Williams v Compair Maxam Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
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.