Case 2402782/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Carberry v Hazel Grove DIY Centre Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402782/2021
- Decision date
- 28 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ficklin REPRESENTATION
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Carberry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 25 February 2022, Employment Judge Ficklin found that there had been a relevant transfer of the respondent company on 25 January 2021 in accordance with the TUPE Regulations, from Mr Andrew Curry to Mr Michael Budd. The tribunal also found that Mr A Carberry was an employee of the first respondent within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 at that time.
The judgment dismissed the claim against the second respondent, Mr Andrew Curry. It did not determine whether the claimant's employment was terminated on 25 January 2021; that issue was left to the final hearing. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and written reasons were not to be provided unless requested in writing within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment expressly dismisses the claim against the second respondent, Mr Andrew Curry. The extract does not identify the underlying cause of action, and the tribunal separately found there had been a relevant TUPE transfer on 25 January 2021 and that the claimant was an employee of the first respondent at the relevant time. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.