Case 4105470/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S J Taylor v Simple Digital Solutions Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4105470/2020
- Decision date
- 27 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Campbell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S J Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S J Taylor was employed by the respondent from 1 May 2015 to 31 July 2020. He contended that service with XLTEC Solutions Limited from 1 April 2014 should have counted towards his redundancy and notice entitlements. The tribunal found that there had been a relevant transfer from XLTEC to the respondent on 1 May 2015, after provisional liquidators had been appointed to XLTEC and after the customer contracts were assigned to the respondent. Because the transfer fell within Regulation 8(7) of TUPE, Regulation 4 did not operate to preserve XLTEC service for continuity purposes. The alternative argument that the companies were associated employers under sections 231 and 218(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 also failed because they were not under common control at the relevant time.
On that basis, the claim for further statutory redundancy pay, said to be £633, was dismissed, and the claim for an additional week's notice pay, said to be £442 gross, was also dismissed. The tribunal found that the respondent had used the correct date of 1 May 2015 when calculating the claimant's continuous service for July 2020 redundancy and notice purposes.
The tribunal did accept that the claimant should have been paid his salary for July 2020 at the furlough rate. It found that he remained employed until 31 July 2020 and that, because no notice period was being served during July, the failure to pay his July salary in full was an unlawful deduction from wages contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Using an annual salary of £23,000 and monthly gross pay of £1,916.67, the tribunal calculated the net amount due for the month at £1,348 and ordered the respondent to pay that sum.
The separate claim about the £200 previously deducted from pay for a parking-fines float failed. The tribunal found that the respondent had already repaid that sum in July 2020, as shown on the payslip, so no further amount was recoverable.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim for an additional £633 in statutory redundancy pay, based on counting service from 1 April 2014 with XLTEC Solutions Limited, was dismissed. The tribunal held that the claimant's XLTEC service did not count because any relevant transfer occurred on 1 May 2015 when Regulation 8(7) of TUPE applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for an additional week's notice pay of £442 gross, advanced on the same basis as the redundancy claim, was dismissed. The tribunal held that the claimant's service with XLTEC did not transfer to the respondent for continuity purposes. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim succeeded insofar as the tribunal found the claimant was entitled to salary for July 2020 at the furlough rate. The tribunal held that he remained employed until 31 July 2020, that he should have been paid for the full month at 80% of gross pay, and that the failure to do so was an unlawful deduction from wages contrary to section 13 ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | £1,348 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim concerning £200 deducted from pay as a float to cover possible parking charges or fines was dismissed. The tribunal found that the £200 had already been reimbursed in July 2020, net of appropriate deductions, so no further sum was due. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,348
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- Regulation 3(1) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 8(7) TUPE 2006
- section 231 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 218(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 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.