Case 2305654/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Khook Tung Foo First v Ioffice Limited Second Respondent: Mighty Visage Studios Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305654/2023
- Decision date
- 2 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCann
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Khook Tung Foo First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the Claimant's employment transferred from the Second Respondent to the First Respondent by 1 April 2023 at the latest under TUPE. It found that the March 2023 meeting, the move of the 3D rendering work to the First Respondent's premises, the use of the same software and clients, the creation of OCS Studios, the redirection of the Mighty Visage website and LinkedIn page, and the First Respondent's payment of salaries all pointed to a transfer of an economic entity retaining its identity. The tribunal preferred the Claimant's evidence over Mr Probert's, which it found unreliable and inconsistent.
The tribunal found that Ms Knowles dismissed the Claimant on 15 June 2023 on behalf of the First Respondent, with termination taking effect on 30 June 2023. It held that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was the transfer, so the dismissal was automatically unfair under TUPE regulation 7(1). The tribunal also said that, even if the reason had been redundancy or some other substantial reason, there had been no warning, consultation or fair process and the dismissal would have been unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 in any event. The claims against the Second Respondent were dismissed because the contract and liabilities had already transferred.
On notice pay, the tribunal held that the Claimant had 11 full years' service by 30 June 2023 and was entitled to 11 weeks' notice, but had only been given 2 weeks and 1 day. It therefore awarded wrongful dismissal damages for 8 weeks and 4 days, calculated on gross pay at £780 per week, producing £6,864. On wages, it found that the Claimant was a salaried employee who had been underpaid for June 2023 and awarded £778.16 for the unauthorised deduction made when only £1,855.60 was paid on 1 August 2023.
As to redundancy, the tribunal rejected the redundancy payment claim because it found the dismissal was not by reason of redundancy. It made a basic award of £7,073 and a compensatory award for unfair dismissal of £11,669.57 for past loss of earnings, plus £500 for loss of statutory rights. It also awarded £1,286 under s.38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the First Respondent had not provided an updated written statement reflecting the change of employer and the Claimant's continuous service. No ACAS uplift was awarded. The total award was £28,170.73, and recoupment applied because the Claimant had received Jobseeker's Allowance; the prescribed element was £11,669.57, the prescribed period ran from 1 September 2023 to 2 May 2024, and the balance was £16,501.16.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld against the First Respondent; the tribunal held that the Claimant's contract transferred by TUPE to the First Respondent by 1 April 2023 at the latest and that his dismissal on 15 June 2023 was automatically unfair because the principal reason was the transfer. Claims against the Second Respondent were dismissed because the contract and liabilities had transferred. | Upheld | — | £19,243 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Upheld against the First Respondent only. The Claimant was entitled to 11 weeks' notice but received 2 weeks and 1 day, so damages were awarded for 8 weeks and 4 days at his gross weekly pay of £780. Claims against the Second Respondent were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £6,864 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld against the First Respondent only. The tribunal found that the Claimant was underpaid for June 2023 when he received £1,855.60 on 1 August 2023 instead of his full monthly net salary of £2,633.76, creating an unauthorised deduction of £778.16. Claims against the Second Respondent were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £778 |
| Redundancy | Dismissed. The tribunal found that the Claimant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy and said that, in any event, he had already been awarded a basic award for unfair dismissal, so no separate statutory redundancy payment was due. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £28,171
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,073
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £11,670
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
11 references- Regulation 3(1)(a) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 7(1) TUPE 2006
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- William v Compair Maxam principles
- Spijkers multifactorial approach
- Kuzel burden of proof approach
- Polkey reduction
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
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.