Case 2414341/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Fagan Mr L Dickinson Respondent BES Metering Services Limited v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2414341/2019
- Decision date
- 27 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr C Fagan Mr L Dickinson Respondent BES Metering Services Limited
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Fagan and Mr L Dickinson brought joined claims of constructive unfair dismissal arising out of the transfer of the metering business from the Access Install companies to BES Metering Services Limited. The tribunal found that each claimant was an employee with at least two years' continuous service, holding that continuity from 2015 had been preserved through the associated-company transfers and, alternatively, by TUPE. It rejected the respondent's case that the new contracts of 30 May 2019 broke continuity.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent's conduct cumulatively frustrated and obstructed the claimants' ability to run the business and earn the deferred SPA payments. It relied on findings including intrusive management visits to the Liverpool office, demands for daily reporting, denial of financial and IT information, restrictions on authority, requirements to work at Fleetwood, the 13 and 19 September 2019 letters limiting the claimants' roles, and the suspension and lock-out on 1 October 2019 after the night-time removal of documents from the office. The tribunal held that the suspension was not a neutral act and, in context, amounted to a fundamental breach and a last straw.
The tribunal found that the claimants resigned promptly on 9 October 2019 and did not affirm the contracts. It held that the respondent had not advanced any reason for dismissal, so the unfair dismissal claims were well-founded under section 98 ERA 1996 and there was no need to assess reasonableness under section 98(4). The tribunal also rejected the respondent's reliance on alleged involvement with Callesti Energy Supply Limited or Ekavi Limited, and held that clause 10.1(c) of the SPA did not bar the tribunal claims. Liability only was decided in this judgment; the claims were listed for a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Mr C Fagan's constructive unfair dismissal claim; the tribunal found he had continuous employment and was constructively dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Mr L Dickinson's constructive unfair dismissal claim; the tribunal found he had continuous employment and was constructively dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.230 ERA 1996
- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- s.210(5) ERA 1996
- Nicoll v Nocorrode Ltd
- s.218(2) ERA 1996
- TUPE 2006 Regulation 4
- s.218(6) ERA 1996
- s.231 ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- s.203 ERA 1996
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.