Ms SC Moldovan v Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and 1 other — 2019

The Claimant did not attend the hearing. She told the clerk she was now working as a private carer and could not take the day off work, and had emailed the First Respondent that morning indicating she could not attend. The Tribunal did not treat that email as a withdrawal, but considered that she still wanted a decision while not intending to attend further hearings.

The claim concerned notice pay, unpaid wages and redundancy pay following earlier proceedings against Cleevelink Limited. The Tribunal recorded that Employment Judge Ford QC had previously found there had been a TUPE transfer but, because of insolvency, the Claimant's employment had not transferred and she was entitled to redundancy pay from Cleevelink Limited. In the present proceedings, both Respondents agreed there had been a TUPE transfer on 6 March 2017 but said Cleevelink was not in insolvency proceedings until 17 March 2017, meaning the Claimant's employment transferred to TLC Home Care Services and she was not redundant.

The Tribunal considered that the Respondents had valid arguments about the insolvency date and redundancy position, but that it could not reconsider another tribunal region's judgment. It would have been willing to stay or adjourn the matter to allow applications in relation to the earlier judgment, but decided that would continue proceedings which the Claimant did not want to pursue further. Taking account of the Claimant's non-attendance, likely future non-attendance, and an ex gratia payment she had received, the Tribunal dismissed the claim in its entirety.