Case 3304016/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Mathur (1) (“the First Claimant”) Ms S Mukerjee (2) (“the Second Claimant”) Ms P Desai (3) (“the Third Claimant”) v Watford Way Medical Centre and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 3304016/2018
- Decision date
- 23 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms N Mathur (1) (“the First Claimant”) Ms S Mukerjee (2) (“the Second Claimant”) Ms P Desai (3) (“the Third Claimant”)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard a preliminary issue about whether each claimant was employed by Dr S L Datoo at the relevant times for their claims. Ms Mathur withdrew her unfair dismissal complaint against the First Respondent, and that complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. Ms Desai's unfair dismissal complaint had already been withdrawn and dismissed by a judgment sent on 23 August 2019. The other pleaded claims included salary arrears, notice pay, holiday pay, statutory redundancy pay, and, for Ms Mathur and Ms Desai, unpaid employer pension contributions.
The tribunal found that the claimants had originally been employed by Dr Datoo personally, but that the First Respondent company, Watford Way Medical Centre Ltd, had by no later than 30 December 2016 become responsible for operating the surgery and paying Dr Datoo and the claimants. It found that the claimants had not given express or implied consent to a common law novation of their contracts, because they were not informed that their employer was changing.
Applying TUPE, the tribunal found that there had been a relevant transfer of the surgery from Dr Datoo to the First Respondent in 2016 or earlier. The surgery was found to be an economic entity retaining its identity: the patients, staff, premises and surgery name remained the same. Under regulation 4, and by reference to Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Cook, the contracts transferred automatically even though the claimants did not know about the transfer.
Because Dr Datoo had ceased to be the employer by no later than December 2016, he was not the employer at the relevant time for any of the claims brought by the claimants. All remaining complaints against the Second Respondent, Mrs R Datoo as personal representative of Dr Datoo's estate, were dismissed. The claims against the First Respondent were stayed because the company had been dissolved, and the judgment stated that it did not affect any other claims against the First Respondent.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ms Mathur's unfair dismissal complaint against the First Respondent was dismissed upon withdrawal. Ms Desai's unfair dismissal complaint had previously been withdrawn and dismissed by a judgment sent on 23 August 2019. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Salary arrears complaints against the Second Respondent were dismissed because the claimants were not employed by Dr S L Datoo at the relevant times. Claims against the First Respondent were stayed and not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Complaints for payment in lieu of unused holiday entitlement against the Second Respondent were dismissed because the claimants were not employed by Dr S L Datoo at the relevant times. Claims against the First Respondent were stayed and not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay complaints, and the complaints concerning unpaid employer pension contributions where pleaded, were dismissed against the Second Respondent because the claimants were not employed by Dr S L Datoo at the relevant times. Claims against the First Respondent were stayed and not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The statutory redundancy pay complaints against the Second Respondent were dismissed because the claimants were not employed by Dr S L Datoo at the relevant times. Claims against the First Respondent were stayed and not determined. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Gabriel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd and anor EAT 0190/11
- Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd 1940 AC 1014
- Denham v Midland Employers Mutual Assurance [1955] 2 Q.B. 437
- Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- TUPE regulation 3(1)(a)
- TUPE regulation 3(2)(b)
- TUPE regulation 3(4)(a)
- Dr Sophie Redmond Stichting v Bartol and ors 1992 IRLR 366
- Celtec Ltd v Astley and ors 2005 ICR 1409
- TUPE regulation 4
- Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Cook [1997] I.C.R. 288
- TUPE regulation 4(3)
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.