Case 2402165/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Y Barron (1) Mr A Moore (2) v Vedamain Ltd and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402165/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Y Barron (1) Mr A Moore (2)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Y Barron and Mr A Moore worked at Abbey Taxis before the business transferred from Clakim Limited to Vedamain Limited on 17 December 2019. The tribunal rejected the second claimant's illegality argument, finding no evidence that Mr Moore had colluded with Mr Williams to create an illegal contract, and held that both claimants were employees whose contracts transferred under TUPE.
The tribunal found that neither claimant was dismissed principally because of the transfer itself. Instead, the first respondent dismissed them after it formed the belief that they had been involved in financial irregularities at Abbey Taxis. That meant the automatic unfair dismissal claims under TUPE failed. The tribunal also rejected redundancy as the reason for dismissal, finding that the dismissals were for alleged misconduct rather than redundancy.
The ordinary unfair dismissal claims succeeded. Applying Burchell and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the first respondent genuinely believed the misconduct allegations, but did not have reasonable grounds for that belief and did not carry out a reasonable investigation. The tribunal also found the disciplinary process unfair, including the lack of proper suspension letters and the absence of a proper investigation before the disciplinary hearings. It ordered a 10% uplift to the compensatory award for procedural failings. Ms Barron's award was not reduced for contributory fault, but Mr Moore's compensatory award is to be reduced by 25% for contributory fault.
Both claimants succeeded on breach of contract/wrongful dismissal because they were summarily dismissed without notice and the tribunal found there was insufficient evidence of gross misconduct. Both were also found to be affected employees for TUPE consultation purposes, and the tribunal held that the transferor and transferee failed to comply with their duty to inform and consult because the consultation letters dated 4 December 2019 were not distributed before the transfer. Remedy, including notice pay, any compensation for the TUPE consultation claim, and the issue of joint and several liability, was left to a later remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Ms Barron's automatic unfair dismissal complaint under TUPE failed because the tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was the first respondent's post-transfer belief that she had been involved in financial irregularities, not the transfer itself. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Mr Moore's automatic unfair dismissal complaint under TUPE failed because the tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was the first respondent's post-transfer belief that he had been involved in financial irregularities, not the transfer itself. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ms Barron's ordinary unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed misconduct had occurred, but found there were not reasonable grounds for that belief, the investigation was inadequate, and the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. A 10% uplift was ordered for procedural failures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr Moore's ordinary unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed misconduct had occurred, but found there were not reasonable grounds for that belief, the investigation was inadequate, and the dismissal was outside the range of reasonable responses. The compensatory award is to be reduced by 25% for contributory fault. | Upheld | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Patel v Mirza [2017] AC 467
- Stoffel and Co v Grondona [2020] UKSC 42
- BHS Stores Limited v Burchell [1978]
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd [1988]
- W Devis and Sons Ltd v Atkins [1977] ICR 662
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- regulation 4 TUPE 2006
- regulation 7 TUPE 2006
- regulations 13, 15 and 16 TUPE 2006
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.