Case 2309405/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Ella Buss v Rye HB Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2309405/2025
- Decision date
- 21 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eoin Fowell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Ella Buss
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined that the correct respondent was Rye HB Limited. It found that the economic entity comprising Hoof restaurant in Rye transferred from The Hoof Burgers Limited to Rye HB Limited on 5 February 2025.
The tribunal found that Ms Buss was not dismissed on the transfer, although she was issued with a new employment contract some time afterwards. Any purported contractual variation was void under Regulation 4(9) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations.
Ms Buss's continuous service was therefore unaffected and began in 2020, giving her sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal did not determine that complaint at this preliminary hearing; it will continue to a final hearing on 4 and 5 October 2027. No remedy was awarded or determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment determined preliminary issues concerning the respondent's identity, the transfer, contractual variation and continuity of service. It did not determine the unfair dismissal complaint, which will continue to a final hearing on 4 and 5 October 2027. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 4(9) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations
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.