Case 2307509/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Myszka v Mr Tom Harker and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2307509/2020
- Decision date
- 18 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicklin Representation
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr W Myszka
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal joined The Bull Inn Rolvenden Limited as the Third Respondent and found that there had been a transfer of the business concerning The Bull Inn, Rolvenden, Kent under TUPE 2006, taking effect on 30 September 2020. It also found that Mr T Harker was not the Claimant’s employer, so all claims against the First Respondent were dismissed.
The claim for automatic unfair dismissal under Regulation 7 of TUPE 2006 was dismissed because the Claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service. The tribunal held that the Claimant had been wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract by the Third Respondent because he was not given the statutory one-week notice required by section 86 ERA 1996, but it made no further award under sections 91(5) and 89(4) because of the Claimant’s entitlement to holiday pay for the same period.
The tribunal found that the Third Respondent had made unlawful deductions from wages between April and October 2020. These comprised oral variations to pay that did not comply with section 13 ERA 1996, totalling £4,800 gross, and unpaid holiday pay for unused and taken leave totalling £1,107.72 gross. Pursuant to Regulation 4 TUPE 2006, Ms C Francis was liable to pay the combined sum of £5,907.72 gross, net of any necessary deductions for tax and National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under Regulation 7 of TUPE 2006 dismissed because the Claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found that the Claimant was wrongfully dismissed in breach of contract because he was not given the statutory one-week notice required by section 86 ERA 1996, but made no further award because of the Claimant’s entitlement to holiday pay for the same period. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found a series of unlawful deductions from wages between April and October 2020, comprising £4,800 gross for oral variations to pay and £1,107.72 gross for unused and taken but unpaid holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £5,908 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £5,908
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Regulation 7 of TUPE 2006
- section 86 ERA 1996
- section 13 ERA 1996
- Regulation 4 of TUPE 2006
- sections 89(4) and 91(5) 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.