Case 2417372/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Hulme and 20 others (see attached schedule) v Phonetic Limited (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and 3 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2417372/2020
- Decision date
- 11 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Ms S Hulme and 20 others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal found that there had been a transfer of an economic entity from Phonetic Limited, the first respondent, to Phonetic Group Limited, the fourth respondent, pursuant to Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
The tribunal stated, for the avoidance of doubt, that the business in its entirety transferred from the first respondent to the fourth respondent. It also found that all claimants listed in the attached schedule were assigned to the first respondent's business, which transferred.
No monetary remedy was recorded in this preliminary judgment. Written reasons were not provided in the document because reasons had been given orally, with written reasons available only on request within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The preliminary judgment determined that there had been a transfer of an economic entity from the first respondent to the fourth respondent under Regulation 3(1)(a) TUPE 2006. Other listed claim categories were not adjudicated in this written judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 3(1)(a) 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.