Mr J Mattis v Cleaners Clean R1 Ashley Cleaning Services Ltd R2 Albion & East Limited t/a Martello Hall R3 CC Commercial Cleaners Limited R4 — 2025

Mr J Mattis said he had worked as a cleaner for R2 at R3's Martello Hall premises for several years until around 30 or 31 August 2023, when he attended for work and met someone he understood to be doing his job. R2 said it had lost the cleaning contract and expected TUPE to apply. R3 said cleaning had moved to another contractor, but the identity of the alleged transferee remained disputed, and R4 had only been incorporated in June 2024.

At this preliminary hearing Judge Quill applied the strike-out and deposit-order principles under Rule 38 and Rule 40, together with the authorities cited in the judgment. He held that the claimant had better than little reasonable prospects of showing that his claim was in time, that he had been employed by R2 for more than two years, that he was dismissed by his employer, and that he had arguable claims for unfair dismissal under Regulation 7 TUPE and sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996, as well as for a statutory redundancy payment and notice entitlement.

The tribunal found there was an organised grouping of one employee carrying out cleaning for R3 before the alleged transfer date, but concluded that factual questions about what happened from 31 August 2023 onward required evidence and cross-examination. It therefore refused to strike out the claims against R2 or R3 and declined to make any deposit orders. R3's request for a judgment against R4 was also refused because R4's liability could not properly be decided on the papers alone, and undefended status was not enough to justify judgment without a hearing.