Case 6010535/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Healey v Sitemix Direct Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010535/2025
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs E Healey
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant was not transferred from Sitemix Direct Ltd to Exact Concrete Ltd under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. The claims against Exact Concrete Ltd were therefore not well-founded and were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that Sitemix Direct Ltd failed to pay the claimant a statutory redundancy payment and ordered it to pay £5,192.28. It also found that Sitemix Direct Ltd dismissed the claimant in breach of contract and ordered it to pay £4,615.36, equivalent to eight weeks' notice.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The Tribunal found that the claimant was not transferred from the first respondent to the second respondent under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, and dismissed the claims against the second respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | The first respondent failed to pay the claimant a statutory redundancy payment. | Upheld | — | £5,192 |
| Breach of contract | The first respondent dismissed the claimant in breach of contract and was ordered to pay damages equivalent to eight weeks' notice. | Upheld | — | £4,615 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £9,808
- across all upheld claims
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.