Case 3325790/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Day 1 - Mr J Secrett, in person Mr T Robinson (until approx. 2.30pm), Mr S Moore and Mr A Preece, claimants Day 2 - Mr J Secrett in person, Mr S Moore, claimant. For the
At the preliminary hearing in Bury St Edmunds on 2 and 3 July 2018, the tribunal dealt first with disclosure and then with whether there had been a relevant transfer for the purposes of TUPE. It heard evidence from Mr Cattermole and Mr Raven, accepted that evidence, and rejected the claimant's argument that disclosure had to be given using a prescribed CPR form or disclosure statement. The tribunal held that the Employment Tribunal Rules and Presidential Guidance did not require that formality.
The tribunal refused further disclosure of schedules 4 to 7 to the 31 March 2016 share purchase agreement and refused disclosure of the 22 June 2017 draft agreement. It found the schedules were not relevant to the TUPE issue, that the redactions were appropriate because they removed confidential or commercially sensitive material, and that the June 2017 document was only a draft that had not been seen by the other side. It also rejected the submission that the hearing could not fairly proceed without those documents.
On the merits, the tribunal found that the only concluded transaction was the conditional share purchase agreement dated 31 March 2016 between Apple Blossom Holdings Ltd and Eastern Transport Holdings Ltd. It held that this was a share purchase, not a transfer of an undertaking, and that there had been no transfer of an economic entity retaining its identity. The tribunal found there was no day-to-day takeover of the business comparable to the position in Guvera, and it applied the TUPE provisions and the authorities it cited, including Spijkers and Millam, in concluding that there had been no relevant transfer under Regulation 3. It also treated the May 2017 holiday pay correspondence as a separate issue and not evidence of a TUPE transfer.
Because there was no relevant transfer, the Regulation 13 inform-and-consult claims failed. Mr Secrett and Mr Moore withdrew their own TUPE claims during the hearing, and the remaining Regulation 13 claims were dismissed. The tribunal also found that the employer of the drivers was Galloway European Coachlines Ltd, so the claims against Galloway Coach Travel Ltd and Appleblossom Holdings Ltd were dismissed. The tribunal recorded that all claims brought by Mr Godbold, Mr Wood and Mr Potter were withdrawn.
The claims brought under Regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 were either withdrawn or dismissed for failure to show cause under the 24 February 2018 case management order. The holiday pay claims were dealt with separately and were also either withdrawn or dismissed for failure to show cause, including the holiday pay claims of Mr Secrett and Mr Moore, which they withdrew at the hearing. As a result, the tribunal concluded that no claims continued and no remedy was awarded.
This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Mr Secrett and Mr Moore withdrew their Regulation 13 TUPE claims at the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The remaining Regulation 13 TUPE claims were dismissed because there was no relevant transfer under Regulation 3; the tribunal held the only concluded transaction was the conditional share purchase agreement dated 31 March 2016 and dismissed the claims against the 1st and 3rd respondents after finding the employer was Galloway European Coachlines Ltd. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998 claims listed in paragraph 5.1 were withdrawn. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The Regulation 30 Working Time Regulations 1998 claims listed in paragraph 5.2 were dismissed for failure to show cause under the 24 February 2018 case management order. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Mr Secrett and Mr Moore withdrew their holiday pay claims at the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The remaining holiday pay claims were dismissed for failure to show cause under the 24 February 2018 case management order. | Dismissed | — | — |
The 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.
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.