Case 3200419/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Claudia Tabares v Bugbusters UK Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200419/2021
- Decision date
- 29 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Peter Wilkinson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Claudia Tabares
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 29 July 2021 before Employment Judge Peter Wilkinson, Ms Claudia Tabares succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against the 1st Respondent, Bugbusters UK Ltd, brought under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal ordered a basic award of £479.60 and a compensatory award of £2,749.76, with the compensatory award stated to include unpaid notice pay and unpaid statutory leave.
The Tribunal also found that the 1st Respondent had failed to comply with regulation 13 of TUPE 2006 and awarded the Claimant £1,133.60 in damages for that breach. The Claimant’s claims against the 2nd Respondent, Crystal Services PLC, were dismissed. The total monetary award recorded by the judgment is £4,362.96.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Allowed against the 1st Respondent under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996; basic award and compensatory award made. The claims against the 2nd Respondent were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £3,229 |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The Tribunal declared that the 1st Respondent failed to comply with regulation 13 of TUPE 2006 and awarded damages for that breach. The claims against the 2nd Respondent were dismissed. | Upheld | — | £1,134 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,363
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £480
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,750
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 13 of TUPE 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.