Case 3307121/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Pike, Solicitor For the First v Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd (in Administration) and 1 other — 2023

Case reference: 3307121/2022
Decision date: 4 July 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Postle Appearances

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr Pike, Solicitor For the First

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

On the unchallenged evidence of Mr Hattee and Mrs Bancroft, Employment Judge Postle found that both claimants were wholly assigned to the First Respondent before the transfer to Ideal World Limited. The respondents did not attend and were not represented.

The Tribunal held that both claimants should have transferred to the Second Respondent by virtue of Regulation 4 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. The written judgment records that conclusion only and does not set out any monetary remedy.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Transfer of undertakings (TUPE)	On the unchallenged evidence of Mr Hattee and Mrs Bancroft, the Tribunal found that both claimants were wholly assigned to the First Respondent before the transfer and should have transferred to the Second Respondent under Regulation 4 TUPE 2006. The extracted text contains a wording irregularity ('organised resources'), so this is treated as the Tribunal's assignment finding.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.