Case 3311515/2023 · Employment Tribunal
William Dawood v Centrica plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311515/2023
- Decision date
- 16 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
William Dawood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing on 16 December 2024 and was not represented. The tribunal proceeded after noting that the claimant knew of the hearing date, had a hospital appointment letter dated 31 July 2024, and had not applied for an adjournment.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant's employment had transferred to a subsidiary of the respondent, and that on 23 September 2023 he and two others were again subject to a transfer of an undertaking. The claimant lodged his claim on 7 October 2023 against Centrica Plc only.
The tribunal struck out the claim. Employment Judge Housego found that, because the transfer of undertaking had occurred before the claim was lodged, the claimant could have no claim against the respondent as transferor employer and the claim should have been brought against the transferee company.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive heads of claim. The claim against Centrica Plc was struck out because the tribunal found that the relevant rights, duties, liabilities and obligations had passed to the transferee before the claim was lodged. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
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.