Case 4103338/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Brady v Represented by R Lawson Solicitor Pegasus Couriers Scotland Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103338/2020
- Decision date
- 16 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy Michael
Parties
3 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 8 March 2021 concerned the claimant's application to strike out Ground B of the respondent's ET3 in proceedings for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. The respondent had pleaded that because the claimant had accepted a redundancy payment from previous employment in May 2019, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 did not apply. The claimant withdrew the separate time bar ground and the tribunal heard legal argument only; no evidence was led.
The tribunal accepted the submission that receipt of a redundancy payment did not of itself determine whether TUPE applied or whether the claimant had the continuity needed to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. It noted that there are insolvency scenarios under regulation 8 of TUPE in which the automatic transfer principle can still operate, and that section 214 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 only affects continuity for redundancy-payment purposes. On that basis Ground B was struck out under Rule 37 as having no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal also recorded that, had the matter ended there, the effect would have been as though no response had been submitted under Rule 21, but the respondent was granted leave to amend the ET3.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | This judgment did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. It dealt with the respondent's ET3 response, struck out Ground B as having no reasonable prospects of success, and allowed the respondent to seek amendment of the response. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | This judgment did not determine the merits of the wrongful dismissal claim. It dealt with the respondent's ET3 response, struck out Ground B as having no reasonable prospects of success, and allowed the respondent to seek amendment of the response. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- regulations 4 and 8 TUPE 2006
- section 214 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 218(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.