Case 2601579/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Baldwin and others Respondents 1. Mortimer Management Group Limited (in Administration) 2. Sweetcroft Limited 3. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 4. The Jewellery Outlet Limited v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601579/2019
- Decision date
- 11 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms C Baldwin and others Respondents 1. Mortimer Management Group Limited (in Administration) 2. Sweetcroft Limited 3. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 4. The Jewellery Outlet Limited
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone in Nottingham on 9, 10 and 11 December 2019. The tribunal held that there was a transfer of an undertaking on 19 February 2019 when part of the business of Chapelle was purchased by the second respondent from the first and fourth respondents.
The tribunal also held that, save for the managing director of the first respondent, Mr Anthony Richards, who was not assigned to the economic entity which transferred, all the claimants were assigned to the part of the business of Chapelle that transferred to the second respondent. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Preliminary hearing only; the tribunal determined that a transfer of an undertaking occurred on 19 February 2019 and that the claimants were assigned to the transferred part of the business, save for Mr Anthony Richards. | Upheld | — | — |
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.