Case 3313571/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K Zaman, Counsel For the Respondent 1: No attendance (not notified of the hearing) For the Respondent 2: No attendance JUDGMENT 1. The claimant’s various claims are adjourned to be heard on 7 November 2024 before a judge alone via CVP. REASONS 1. The claimant was employed by the first respondent as a Senior Digital Designer from 8 May 2017 to 6 July 2023 when she was dismissed. That dismissal took place in the context of the first respondent being about to enter into a Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation. The claimant was employed by the second respondent as a Studio Lead and Senior Designer from 21 August 2023. There appears to be some connection between the first and second respondents in that at least one senior employee and director of the first respondent is also a senior employee and director of the second respondent. 2. On 30 November 2023 the claimant commenced the present claim against both respondents. Her primary case is that there was a relevant transfer of an economic entity between eh first and second respondents with the effect that (pursuant to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006) the claimant’s employment and various associated rights and liabilities transferred to the second respondent. Case Number: 3313571/2023 2 3. The claimant makes claims for a basic award for automatic unfair dismissal, a declaration and financial compensation consequent upon a failure to provide appropriate information, wages between 6 July and 21 August and some outstanding holiday pay. 4. It is the claimant’s contention that if there was no transfer then she is entitled to those sums from the first respondent and, given that it is in the process of voluntary liquidation, that those sums should be paid by the Insolvency Service. A request to the Insolvency Service was made, but the claim was rejected on the basis that the Insolvency Service considered that there had been a relevant TUPE transfer. 5. When I saw the tribunal file it became clear to me that the first respondent had not been served with a notification of this hearing. Furthermore, I had reservations as to whether the second respondent had been properly served, given that whilst the notification was sent to its registered address, it was addressed to a firm of accountants (Adams Moore Ltd) who status in respect of these proceedings is unclear to me. It appears that they had been advising the directors of the first respondent prior to the liquidation commencing and there is some suggestion that they may have continue dot advise those directors, possibly also in their capacities as directors of the second respondent. However, there is nothing on the tribunal file to indicate that that is the case, albeit that the claimant’s solicitors were able to tell me of a conversation with the representative of the employment tribunal who had indicated to them that they believed that that firm was advising both the first and second respondents. No note or record of any such conversation appears on the tribunal file. 6. Given that no notice had been served by the tribunal on the first respondent, whether by sending it to the liquidators (as ought to have been done) or otherwise, I could not give any judgment against that entity. I was also concerned that the second respondent might say that it had not properly been notified of this hearing. 7. In these circumstances Mr Zaman took instructions and applied to have this matter adjourned so that proper service could be effected. I note that neither respondent has submitted an ET3, but both are entitled to notification of this hearing and to take such part in it as I, as the Judge, might allow (see Cleo Marketing Ltd 7 Victoria Road Tamworth Staffordshire B79 7HS 9.3 Martin Crook: Martin Crook Adams Moore Ltd 7 Victoria Road Tamworth Staffordshire B79 7HS