Case 3303643/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Ross v Nikki Marks Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303643/2024
- Decision date
- 24 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Ross
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant TUPE transferred to the respondent on or around 22 September 2023, when all the shares in Nikki Marks Ltd were sold to Your Skin Coach Limited (controlled by Miss Cara Jeffrey). The claimant, who founded the company in 2008 and had been a shareholder and director, signed an employment contract with the respondent on the day of the share sale and was dismissed for redundancy on 3 January 2024. The tribunal had to decide her employment status before the sale, because the unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims required at least two years of continuous service.
Employment Judge Dick concluded that before 22 September 2023 the claimant was not an employee of the respondent within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or TUPE 2006/246. The judge held that the pre-sale arrangement was a contract for services rather than a contract of service, noting features consistent with a person running a business on her own account, including her shareholding, directorship, and the manner in which she drew remuneration. Accordingly there was no relevant transfer for the purposes of this claim, and even if the wider TUPE definition applied, the respondent (NML) was the claimant's employer both before and after the sale, so no transfer to the respondent could have occurred.
On that basis, the unfair dismissal and redundancy pay complaints were dismissed for want of the qualifying period of continuous employment, and the wrongful dismissal complaint was dismissed because the claimant had been paid the statutory notice to which she was entitled. The judge expressly declined to comment on the wider merits of how the claimant had been treated, observing that those issues were not before him.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant was not continuously employed by the respondent for not less than two years; the tribunal found she was not an ERA employee before the 22 September 2023 share sale. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed for lack of the requisite continuous employment; pre-sale relationship was held to be a contract for services, not a contract of service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed as the claimant was paid for the notice period to which she was entitled under statute. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Tribunal found there was no relevant transfer on or around 22 September 2023 within the meaning of TUPE 2006/246; determined as a preliminary issue alongside employment status. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Rights Act 1996
- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006/246
- TUPE reg 2(1)
- TUPE regulations 3 and 4
- contract of service vs contract for services
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.