Case 4110020/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Wilson v , Solicitor Suba Retail Ltd st — 2022
- Case reference
- 4110020/2021
- Decision date
- 8 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge Brian
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBrian Wilson had worked for the Co-op since January 2014 and was off sick after a stroke when the Claypotts Road store transferred to Suba Retail Ltd on 18 August 2020. The tribunal found that there was a further relevant TUPE transfer from Suba Retail Ltd to HSK PVT Ltd at some point in January 2021, that his employment transferred with it, and that neither respondent informed or consulted him as required by regulations 13 and 13A. It accepted the TUPE claim was in time, or alternatively that it had not been reasonably practicable to present it earlier because the respondents had not provided clear information about the transfer.
The tribunal held that both respondents were in breach of the TUPE information and consultation duties. It awarded 4 weeks' pay (£720) against Suba Retail Ltd and 4 weeks' pay (£720) against HSK PVT Ltd, and held that HSK PVT Ltd was jointly and severally liable with Suba Retail Ltd for the first respondent's award under regulation 15(9). A separate submission that Suba Retail Ltd had failed to provide employee liability information was rejected for want of sufficient evidence.
On dismissal, the tribunal found that the claimant remained employed until at least 5 March 2021, when the final sick pay payment was made, and that by 26 May 2021 HSK PVT Ltd had made clear that it did not employ him. Applying section 98 ERA 1996, it found that no reason for dismissal had been shown and held the dismissal unfair. It awarded a basic award of £1,890 and a compensatory award of £1,344, giving £3,234 for unfair dismissal after a 20% ACAS uplift. It also awarded £1,260 for failure to give statutory notice and £403.20 for accrued statutory holiday pay, and dismissed the separate claim for further sick pay because the tribunal found his sick pay entitlement had been exhausted by 5 March 2021.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found a relevant TUPE transfer from Suba Retail Ltd to HSK PVT Ltd in January 2021 and held that neither respondent informed or consulted the claimant as required by regulations 13 and 13A. It awarded 4 weeks' pay (£720) against Suba Retail Ltd and 4 weeks' pay (£720) against HSK PVT Ltd, and held HSK PVT Ltd jointly and severally liable with Suba Retail Ltd for the first respondent's £720 award under regulation 15(9). | Upheld | — | £1,440 |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had been dismissed by HSK PVT Ltd by 26 May 2021 at the latest and that no reason for dismissal had been shown under section 98 ERA 1996. It awarded a basic award of £1,890 and a compensatory award of £1,344, including a 20% ACAS uplift, making £3,234 in total for unfair dismissal. | Upheld | — | £3,234 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found that HSK PVT Ltd failed to give the claimant the statutory notice of termination of employment due after 7 full years' service and awarded 7 weeks' pay as damages for breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £1,260 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that the claimant had accrued 2.24 weeks of statutory annual leave by the effective date of termination and awarded £403.20 under the Working Time Regulations. | Upheld | — | £403 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's further claim for sick pay was dismissed because the tribunal found that his contractual sick pay entitlement had been exhausted by 5 March 2021 and no further sums were due. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,337
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,890
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £1,344
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
5 references- Regulations 13 and 13A TUPE Regulations 2006
- Regulation 15 TUPE Regulations 2006
- Regulation 16 TUPE Regulations 2006
- Section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Working Time Regulations 1998, regulation 14
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.