Case 2600705/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Smith v Sbfm and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600705/2024
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh Representation
- Venue
- Midlands East
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr R Smith
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's employment transferred from the second respondent to the first respondent on 1 September 2022. The first respondent had originally denied employing the claimant but conceded during the proceedings that there had been a transfer. The tribunal treated 8 December 2023 as the effective date of termination because that was the date relied on by the claimant and accepted by the first respondent.
For the TUPE failure to inform and consult claim, the ordinary time limit expired on 30 November 2022. The tribunal accepted that it was more likely than not not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present that claim within three months of the transfer, because the right to bring such a claim was technical and there was no evidence he had been advised about it at that stage. However, the tribunal found that by January 2024 he was receiving advice about his rights and potential claims, and that presenting the claim one day after the month following the ACAS certificate was not within a further reasonable period.
For the unfair dismissal, breach of contract, holiday pay and unlawful deduction from wages claims, the tribunal found that the claimant contacted ACAS in time but presented the tribunal claim on 9 April 2024, one day after the extended deadline of 8 April 2024. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for him to present those claims in time, noting that he had started the ACAS process, had union advice, and had not provided evidence showing he was prevented from submitting the claim within the extended period.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Claim for failure to inform and consult about a TUPE transfer was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and was not presented within a further reasonable period. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed as out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the applicable time limit. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.7 Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- Regulation 30(2) Working Time Regulations 1998
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Regulation 15(12) TUPE
- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- section 207B(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- not reasonably practicable
- Palmer and anor v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council 1984 ICR 372
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.