Case 2305072/2024 · Employment Tribunal
1. Mr Fairhurst and others 2. Mr Ujjan and others 3. Mr Noufal and others v Doris Engineering UK Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305072/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Connolly On
Parties
3 namedClaimant
1. Mr Fairhurst and others 2. Mr Ujjan and others 3. Mr Noufal and others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThese were procedural disposals in a short judgment approved by Employment Judge Connolly on 27 May 2025 and sent to the parties on 29 May 2025. The tribunal dismissed upon withdrawal all complaints of failure to pay holiday pay except Mr Connolly's, all complaints of failure to pay other payments, Mr Ujjan's complaint that he was unfairly dismissed because he made a protected disclosure, Mr Noufal's protected-disclosure complaint referred to in the judgment by Case No. 2305926/2024, and any claim against Mr Drennan if accepted.
The tribunal also struck out Mr Noufal, Mr Ujjan, Mr Lainchbury and Mr Kelly's complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal pursuant to regulation 7 TUPE 2006, together with their complaints for a redundancy payment under s.163 ERA 1996, because they had not been continuously employed by the first respondent for at least two years. No merits findings or monetary awards were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | All complaints of failure to pay holiday pay except Mr Connolly's were dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | All complaints of failure to pay other payments were dismissed upon withdrawal; the judgment does not specify the legal basis for these complaints, and it also says that if any claim against Mr Drennan had been accepted, it was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Mr Ujjan's complaint that he was unfairly dismissed because he made a protected disclosure was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment also refers to Mr Noufal's protected-disclosure complaint brought in Case No. 2305926/2024 and says that an identical complaint in Case No. 2305934/2024 was unaffected. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Noufal, Mr Ujjan, Mr Lainchbury and Mr Kelly's complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal pursuant to regulation 7 TUPE 2006 were struck out because they had not been continuously employed by the first respondent for a period of not less than 2 years. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Mr Noufal, Mr Ujjan, Mr Lainchbury and Mr Kelly's complaints for a redundancy payment under s.163 ERA 1996 were struck out for the same reason: they had not been continuously employed by the first respondent for at least 2 years. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 7 TUPE 2006
- s.163 ERA 1996
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.