Case 4103524/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Morgan v RT Nitro Solutions Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103524/2023
- Decision date
- 15 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Morgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs N Morgan started work for RT Nitro Solutions Ltd on 8 March 2021. The tribunal found that her effective date of termination was 13 March 2023, when she first received an email saying that her employment had ended, and that she therefore had more than two years' continuous service. It found that RT Nitro Solutions Ltd had ceased trading in late February 2023 and that the dismissal was caused by cessation of that business, so the dismissal was a redundancy dismissal and no procedure had been followed.
The claims nevertheless failed against the named respondents because the tribunal found that RT Nitro Solutions Ltd had been dissolved and removed from the register on 30 May 2023, that Racetrack Pitstop was only a brand name owned by GHSL Limited, and that there was no evidence of a TUPE transfer from RT Nitro Solutions Ltd to GHSL Limited or that the claimant had been employed by GHSL Limited at the effective date of termination. On that basis the claims against the first and third respondents were dismissed, the claims against the second respondent were dismissed, and all claims against all respondents were dismissed.
For completeness, the tribunal recorded that, had there been a viable respondent, the claimant would have had a meritorious unfair dismissal claim, would have been entitled to statutory redundancy pay, two weeks' notice pay, and 2.6 days' pay for accrued untaken holiday, and would have been entitled to a basic award and compensation for unfair dismissal. The judgment did not quantify any monetary award because no respondent was found liable.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because no respondent was found liable. On the merits, the tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 13 March 2023, that the claimant had more than two years' continuous service, and that the dismissal was a redundancy dismissal with no procedure followed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because no respondent was found liable. The tribunal found that the dismissal was caused by the cessation of RT Nitro Solutions Ltd's business and said that, had there been a viable respondent, statutory redundancy pay of two weeks' pay would have been due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Dismissed because no respondent was found liable. The tribunal found that no notice pay had been paid and said that, on the merits, two weeks' notice pay would have been due. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed because no respondent was found liable. The tribunal found that the claimant had not been paid for accrued untaken holiday and said that, on the merits, 2.6 days' pay would have been due; it treated this as an unauthorised deduction from wages issue. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Safeway Stores plc v Burrell three-stage test
- s.139(1) ERA 1996
- Murray and anor v Foyle Meats Ltd
- Williams and ors v Compair Maxam Ltd guidelines
- section 13 ERA 1996
- section 230(3) ERA 1996
- section 27(1) ERA 1996
- regulation 3 TUPE 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.