Case 3313894/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Ingrida Starkiene v The Barber Shop; and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 3313894/2020
- Decision date
- 28 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mrs Ingrida Starkiene
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that there had been a relevant transfer within the meaning of Regulation 3(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 of the Second Respondent's business to Sharon Butcher in September 2020. It found that, by operation of Regulation 4(1), all the Second Respondent's rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with the Claimant's contract of employment transferred to her.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the Claimant's claims against the Second and Third Respondents. The reason given was that those claims had no reasonable prospects of success. This written record does not record any monetary award or any substantive determination of the underlying employment claims as against those respondents.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found a relevant transfer within Regulation 3(1) of TUPE 2006 of the Second Respondent's business to Sharon Butcher in September 2020, with the effect that the Second Respondent's rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with the Claimant's contract transferred under Regulation 4(1). | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | In light of the TUPE finding, the Claimant's claims against the Second and Third Respondents were struck out on the ground that they had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Regulation 3(1) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 4(1) TUPE 2006
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.