Case 2500384/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs May Kirkland v Mrs Marjorie Allen [First Respondent] Mr Stuart Dixon [Second Respondent] CMD Pubs (Crawcrook) Limited [Third Respondent] Heard: Remotely (by telephone in public) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500384/2020
- Decision date
- 4 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing on 4 February 2021, Employment Judge S Shore proceeded under Rule 21 after the first respondent failed to enter an appearance and failed to respond to a case management order. The responses of the second and third respondents were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, and the case against the second respondent was stayed until 5 May 2021 unless restored.
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found that Mrs May Kirkland was unfairly dismissed and that the principal reason for dismissal was a relevant TUPE transfer, making the dismissal automatically unfair under regulation 7 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. The tribunal recorded that the effective date of termination was 5 January 2020, that the claimant was 58 years old, and that she had 14 complete years of service from 1 May 2005. It awarded a basic award of £2,751 and a compensatory award of £2,096, made up of £1,834 for loss of earnings and £262 for loss of statutory rights.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not contribute to her dismissal, so there was no reduction for contributory fault, and it applied no Polkey deduction. It also found that the Recoupment Regulations did not apply. The unfair dismissal award was made against the first respondent only.
Separately, the first respondent was found to have breached the contract of employment by failing to pay notice pay, with compensation calculated at £1,572, and to have failed to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment as required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, with compensation of £524. For the TUPE consultation claim, the tribunal found a failure to consult contrary to regulation 13 of the TUPE Regulations 2006 and awarded 13 weeks' pay, £1,703, payable jointly and severally by the first and third respondents. The total payable by the first respondent was £6,970, and the joint and several award against the first and third respondents was £1,703.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason was a relevant TUPE transfer. The award was against the first respondent only and comprised a basic award of £2,751 plus a compensatory award of £2,096. | Upheld | — | £4,847 |
| Breach of contract | The first respondent failed to pay notice pay. The award was against the first respondent only. | Upheld | — | £1,572 |
| Other | Failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions of employment under section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The award was against the first respondent only. | Upheld | — | £524 |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Failure to consult with the claimant on the relevant TUPE transfer contrary to regulation 13 of the TUPE Regulations 2006. The first and third respondents were jointly and severally liable. | Upheld | — | £1,703 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £8,673
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,751
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,096
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- regulation 7 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8
- section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 13 of the TUPE 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.