Case 2600946/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Orr v Olsen Doors and Windows Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 2600946/2018
- Decision date
- 28 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Britton
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Orr
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Orr was employed by Olsen Doors and Windows Limited as a Project Estimator on 16 January 2018. He resigned on 17 January 2018, withdrew that resignation after discussions about promotion and improved terms, and then resigned again on 30 January 2018 with an effective date of 23 February 2018. His ET1 pleaded constructive unfair dismissal, a redundancy payment, and breach of contract for non-payment of a golden handcuffs bonus.
The hearing on 3 October 2018 was a preliminary hearing about whether Mr Orr was suing the correct respondent after the company entered administration on 21 May 2018, was renamed ODW Realisations Limited, and its assets were sold to Echelon International Limited, which then changed its name to Olsen Doors and Windows Limited. The tribunal considered TUPE Regulation 3 and Regulation 4, and the Court of Appeal decision in Secretary of State for Employment v Spence and Others on the meaning of immediately before.
Employment Judge Britton held that Mr Orr had ceased to be employed by the transferor by 23 February 2018, almost three months before the alleged transfer on 21 May 2018, so he was not employed immediately before the transfer and the relevant rights and liabilities did not pass to the current respondent. The existing respondent, Olsen Doors and Windows Limited, was dismissed from the proceedings, ODW Realisations Limited was joined, the papers were to be served on the administrators, and the case was to be stayed if the administrators did not consent or if High Court approval was required. The judge noted that any successful unfair dismissal claim against ODW Realisations Limited could potentially give rise to a basic award claim from the Secretary of State under section 182 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Pleadings described constructive unfair dismissal. This judgment only decided the respondent identity/TUPE issue and held that the current respondent was not the correct respondent; merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Redundancy | The ET1 also referred to a redundancy payment, but the judge said on the pleaded scenario this was not a redundancy scenario. No merits determination was made. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The ET1 pleaded breach of contract for non-payment of a golden handcuffs bonus. The judgment did not determine liability on that claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Regulation 3 TUPE 2006
- Regulation 4(1)-(3) TUPE 2006
- Secretary of State for Employment v Spence and Others [1986] ICR 651CA
- section 182 Employment Rights Act 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.