Case 2409237/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Elizabeth Mary Richardson v Hair by Alison Preston Limited (“first respondent”) & Envy Cheshire Limited (“second respondent”) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2409237/2023
- Decision date
- 11 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Elizabeth Mary Richardson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place remotely by video on 7 February 2025 before Employment Judge Tobin, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondents represented by Mrs A Jones and Mr P Warnes. The tribunal recorded that a face-to-face hearing was not held because the relevant matters could be determined in the video hearing.
The sole substantive finding recorded in the judgment was that the claimant's employment with Hair by Alison Preston Limited transferred to Envy Cheshire Limited pursuant to regulation 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. The tribunal said that this transfer occurred on or around 10 June 2023.
No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the judgment extract. The judgment was sent to the parties on 11 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal held that the claimant's employment with the first respondent transferred to the second respondent pursuant to regulation 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 on or around 10 June 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- regulation 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 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.