Case 3306475/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Patrick Panting v Crouch Logistics Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306475/2021
- Decision date
- 18 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Patrick Panting
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Patrick Panting brought a complaint about unpaid wages against Crouch Logistics. He did not attend the hearing, and the respondent had not entered a response. The tribunal recorded that he had been employed by the respondent from 15 October 2018 until 31 March 2021, and that his employment transferred on 1 April 2021 under TUPE to a current employer that was not named in the judgment.
The tribunal said that, by regulation 4(2)(a) of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations, the transferee steps into the transferor's shoes in relation to the transferring employee's rights and liabilities. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant should have brought proceedings against the transferee rather than Crouch Logistics, so the claim failed. It also found that the claimant had not provided details of the amounts claimed in respect of pay, which was an additional reason for dismissal.
The judgment therefore dismissed the claim as not well founded and recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerned unpaid final wages. The tribunal held that, following the TUPE transfer on 1 April 2021, the claimant should have brought proceedings against the transferee, his current employer, rather than Crouch Logistics. It also noted that the claimant had not provided details of the amounts claimed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- regulation 4(2)(a) of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations
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.