Case 2403442/2023 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss D Bendar (2) Mr J Sumner v On Electrical Contractors Ltd (in creditors voluntary liquidation) and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403442/2023
- Decision date
- 7 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Representation
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
4 namedClaimant
(1) Miss D Bendar (2) Mr J Sumner
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ainscough found that there was a relevant transfer under regulation 3(1)(a) of TUPE 2006 between the first respondent (On Electrical Contractors Ltd, in creditors voluntary liquidation) and the second respondent (On Electrical Contractors and Services Ltd) on 21 October 2022. The first respondent was wound up by resolution on 31 October 2022 and liquidators were appointed. Because the claimants' employment transferred to the second respondent before that winding-up, the tribunal held that neither claimant has a right to payment from the Secretary of State under Part 12 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that liability for sums owed sits with the second respondent.
The second respondent was ordered to pay the first claimant £6,000 gross for unlawful deduction from wages between 15 August 2022 and 21 October 2022 under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The first claimant's separate claims for a redundancy payment and for accrued holiday pay on termination were dismissed because her employment had transferred to the second respondent rather than terminated.
The second respondent was ordered to pay the second claimant £10,278 as a redundancy payment under section 135 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, reflecting 12 years of service while aged over 41 at the statutory weekly cap of £571, and a further £4,108.56 gross for accrued holiday pay under regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, calculated on 24 accrued days at a daily rate of £171.19.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | First claimant (Miss D Bendar): £6,000 gross for unlawful deduction from wages 15 August 2022 to 21 October 2022 under s.13 ERA 1996, payable by second respondent. | Upheld | — | £6,000 |
| Redundancy | First claimant's redundancy pay claim dismissed because her employment transferred to the second respondent on 21 October 2022 under TUPE. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | First claimant's accrued holiday pay claim dismissed for the same TUPE-transfer reason. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Second claimant (Mr J Sumner): £10,278 redundancy payment under s.135 ERA 1996; 12 years' service, aged over 41 throughout, 1.5 weeks' gross pay capped at £571 per year. Payable by second respondent. | Upheld | — | £10,278 |
| Holiday pay | Second claimant: £4,108.56 gross accrued holiday pay on termination under regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998 (24 accrued days at daily rate £171.19). Payable by second respondent. | Upheld | — | £4,109 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,387
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- regulation 3(1)(a) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- Part 12 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 135 Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 14 Working Time Regulations 1998
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.