Case 2411009/2023 · Employment Tribunal
A M Ashu v Little Chalfont Limited HELD AT: Manchester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411009/2023
- Decision date
- 26 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A M Ashu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Batten, sitting alone, found that Little Chalfont Limited failed to inform or consult A M Ashu about the transfer of his employment to People Solutions Outsourcing Limited on or about 30 March 2023. The tribunal held that this was a breach of Regulation 13 and/or 13A of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
As a remedy for that default, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay 13 weeks' pay. The sum ordered was £6,539.40. The judgment also included the standard interest notice, stating the relevant decision day as 25 April 2024 and the stipulated interest rate as 8%, but no separate interest sum was set out in the judgment itself.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found that the respondent failed to inform or consult the claimant about the transfer of his employment to People Solutions Outsourcing Limited on or about 30 March 2023, contrary to Regulation 13 and/or 13A of the TUPE Regulations 2006. | Upheld | — | £6,539 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,539
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 13 TUPE
- Regulation 13A TUPE
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.