Case 3302960/2021 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr M Ford (2) Mr N Owen (3) Mr D Hankey v Suez Industrial Water Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3302960/2021
- Decision date
- 14 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Brown Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
(1) Mr M Ford (2) Mr N Owen (3) Mr D Hankey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was entered pursuant to rule 21 after the second respondent did not present a response. The tribunal considered the file and hearing bundle, heard counsel for the claimants and the first respondent, and stated that on the material available it could properly determine part of the claims.
The tribunal declared that there was a relevant transfer of the claimants' employment from the first respondent to the second respondent on 31 October 2020. It also declared that the second respondent unfairly dismissed the claimants and wrongfully dismissed them.
The complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal against the first respondent were dismissed. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal declared that there was a relevant transfer of the claimants' employment from the first respondent to the second respondent on 31 October 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal declared that the second respondent unfairly dismissed the claimants. The complaints of unfair dismissal against the first respondent were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal declared that the second respondent wrongfully dismissed the claimants. The complaints of wrongful dismissal against the first respondent were dismissed. | 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.
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.