Case 2312416/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Richards Mr A Reely Mr P Asiimwe Mr M Luckhurst Mr A Parslow v London Bus Works Limited ( In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2312416/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mclaren Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs M Richards Mr A Reely Mr P Asiimwe Mr M Luckhurst Mr A Parslow
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reconsideration under rule 71 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 of the judgment dated 10 April 2025. The tribunal said the judgment was not varied. It found that there was no relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations between the first and second respondent, and that the claimants began work for the second respondent on 23 September 2023.
The tribunal further found that the complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, notice pay, holiday pay and redundancy pay were well founded. It recorded that the awards made against the first respondent stood as made. The written record does not set out the individual monetary awards or any revised remedy figures.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reconsideration judgment states that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well founded. The written record does not state a separate amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The reconsideration judgment states that the notice pay complaint was well founded. The written record does not state a separate amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The reconsideration judgment states that the holiday pay complaint was well founded. The written record does not state a separate amount. | Upheld | — | — |
| Redundancy | The reconsideration judgment states that the redundancy pay complaint was well founded. The written record does not state a separate amount. | Upheld | — | — |
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.