Case 6007958/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Shaun McGrath v Matthew Thomas Shaw and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007958/2024
- Decision date
- 18 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Shaun McGrath
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge KM Ross found that following a Transfer of an Undertaking (The Wheatsheaf Hotel, Littleborough) pursuant to Regulation 4 of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 2006 in or around 25 June 2004, the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed by the second respondent under Regulation 4(9) and Regulation 7 TUPE. The first respondent was represented by a consultant; the second respondent did not attend.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £2,002 (£572 x 3.5), a loss of statutory rights award of £500, notice pay of £3,432 (£572 x 6), and a compensatory award totalling £4,057 (comprising £1,977 for the period 6 August to 6 September 2024, calculated as £572 x 4 less £311, plus £2,080 for the period 6 September 2004 to 17 November 2025 at £30 weekly). The grand total payable by the second respondent to the claimant within 14 days was £9,991. The Recoupment Regulations were stated not to apply.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal under Regulation 4(9) and Regulation 7 TUPE 2006 by the second respondent following a transfer of undertaking. Total payable by the second respondent within 14 days. | Upheld | — | £9,991 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay awarded of £3,432 (£572 x 6). | Upheld | — | £3,432 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,991
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,002
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,057
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 4(9) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 7 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.