Case 3315395/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Johnson v Aurora Lighting UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315395/2022
- Decision date
- 6 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Johnson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a closed preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Alliott sitting alone on 11 October 2023. The respondent applied for a deposit order on the basis that the claimant had little reasonable prospect of showing that he was dismissed on any date later than 18 August 2022, with the result that his dismissal claims would be out of time. The judge recorded the agreed position that there had been a relevant transfer on 18 August 2022, and approached the application on the basis that the claimant had transferred to the respondent, while noting that the respondent disputed those underlying matters for the purposes of the broader case.
The tribunal accepted that there had been no direct communication from the transferee respondent to the claimant saying that his employment had been terminated on 18 August 2022 or afterwards. It also noted that the communication from the transferor's administrators on 25 August 2022 was relevant to when termination was communicated, not necessarily to when it occurred. The judge said there was no evidence that the claimant was told on 18 August 2022 that he would TUPE transfer to the respondent and immediately have his transferred contract end on the same day.
Applying Rule 39 and the lower threshold for a deposit order, the tribunal concluded that it could not say the claimant had little reasonable prospect of successfully showing that the effective date of termination of his contract of employment with the respondent was after 18 August 2022. The respondent's application for a deposit order was therefore dismissed. The judgment also records that earlier seven-day trial dates in June 2024 were offered to the parties in place of the existing June to July 2025 listing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application for a deposit order under Rule 39, not a merits judgment on the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal refused the deposit order and did not determine the substantive dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure Rule 39
- little reasonable prospect of success
- Gisda Cyf v Barratt [2010] ICR 1475 SC
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.