Case 3329312/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Meta VS Ltd and Others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3329312/2017
- Decision date
- 10 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy an order made on 19 December 2018 and sent to the parties on 10 January 2019, the Tribunal required Meta VS Ltd to state by 25 January 2019 whether it disputed that there had been a relevant transfer of the business from Meta Vision Systems Ltd to Meta VS Ltd in or about early August 2017, and, if it did dispute that transfer, to provide further particulars by 30 January 2019. Meta VS Ltd replied on 25 January 2019 that it did not believe there had been a relevant transfer, but it did not comply with the further-particulars requirement.
Because Meta VS Ltd failed to comply with the order, the Tribunal entered judgment on liability in the Claimants' favour. The claims upheld against the First Respondent were unfair dismissal, payment in lieu of annual leave, unlawful deductions, breach of contract, and failure to consult under regulation 13 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
The judgment did not assess remedy. It recorded that the hearing listed for 2, 3 and 4 September 2019 would proceed as a hearing on remedy only.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
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.