Case 2408651/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Burrell & Others Ms Cooke & Others Miss E Bamber & Others Mrs Goldfinch & Others Mrs Broome & Others
The claimants were employed in catering roles in Lancashire schools. Their employment was affected by changes in contractors following the first respondent's insolvency, and those changes may have amounted to relevant transfers under TUPE. The second respondent denied that there was a relevant transfer to it and said that catering services were provided by Dolce Limited rather than Dolce UK Limited.
The preliminary issue was whether the claims against the second respondent should be rejected because the early conciliation certificates named Dolce Limited, while the claim forms named Dolce UK Limited. The Tribunal considered rule 12 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and the authorities cited by the parties.
The Tribunal found that the names Dolce Limited and Dolce UK Limited had been used interchangeably and ambiguously in the employment documents. It held that the difference in the names was a minor error in the circumstances and that it would not be in the interests of justice to reject the claims. The second respondent's application was refused; no substantive TUPE findings were made.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Preliminary hearing only. The Tribunal refused the second respondent's application to reject the claims under rule 12 because of the difference between 'Dolce Limited' on the early conciliation certificates and 'Dolce UK Limited' on the claim forms. No findings were made on whether there was a relevant transfer or on the merits of the underlying claims. | Other | — | — |
The 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.
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.