Case 3315339/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J. Allen C1 Ms. K. Catnott C2 v Mr. S. Walters R1 Mr. R. Shreshta R2 — 2024
- Case reference
- 3315339/2022
- Decision date
- 6 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J. Allen C1 Ms. K. Catnott C2
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the employment of Claimant 1 and Claimant 2 transferred from the First Respondent to the Second Respondent on 7 October 2022 by virtue of Regulation 4 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. It then found that both claimants were unfairly dismissed on 14 October 2022 because the sole or principal reason for their dismissal was the transfer itself.
The only remedy recorded was a basic award payable by the Second Respondent. Claimant 1 was awarded £1,085.94 and Claimant 2 was awarded £3,581.50. The judgment records that the claimants did not seek a compensatory award, so no compensatory sum was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant 1. The tribunal found he was unfairly dismissed on 14 October 2022 because the sole or principal reason for dismissal was the transfer itself. | Upheld | — | £1,086 |
| Unfair dismissal | Claimant 2. The tribunal found she was unfairly dismissed on 14 October 2022 because the sole or principal reason for dismissal was the transfer itself. | Upheld | — | £3,582 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,667
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £4,667
- statutory, unfair dismissal
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 4 of the Transfer of Undertakings (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.