Case 2411693/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Sarah Davies v Hotter Shoes Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2411693/2023
- Decision date
- 27 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Sarah Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Sarah Davies brought a preliminary issue complaint against Hotter Shoes Limited alleging a failure to inform and consult under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. The tribunal considered the claim under Regulation 15 and held that it had not been brought against the transferor at the time of the alleged breach of Regulation 13.
On that basis, the tribunal found that no complaint could be treated as well founded under Regulation 15(8). It also held that, in those circumstances, the respondent could not be liable under Regulation 15(9). The complaint was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Complaint of failure to inform and consult under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, brought under Regulation 15. The tribunal held it was not brought against the transferor at the time of the alleged breach of Regulation 13, so no complaint could be found well founded under Regulation 15(8), and the respondent could not be liable under Regulation 15(9). | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.