Case 6013677/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ray Martin v GDSPL Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013677/2024
- Decision date
- 20 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Choudry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ray Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims including ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal, notice pay, holiday pay, and claims relating to commission, pension contributions and company car entitlement after his employment ended on 31 August 2024. By an earlier judgment dated 7 November 2024, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim was struck out because he did not have the requisite service. The reserved judgment therefore dealt with the TUPE-based automatic unfair dismissal claim and the related contractual and pay issues.
The tribunal found that the pre-pack sale of NEC's business and assets to the respondent on 1 May 2024 amounted to a TUPE transfer. It found there was a stable economic entity, namely a large-format printing business, and that it retained its identity after the transfer. The tribunal relied on the transfer of employees who continued doing the same work at the same location for the same clients, the transfer of goodwill, office furniture, plant, equipment and stock, and the licence to occupy NEC's premises. It accepted the claimant's evidence that he continued working from 1 May 2024 without interruption, and rejected Mr Masiak's evidence that NEC had ceased trading on 31 March 2024, that the claimant started on 13 May 2024, or that there was written evidence of a later start date or pension arrangements.
Having found no credible evidence of any reason for dismissal other than TUPE, the tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed for a reason connected to the transfer and that the dismissal was automatically unfair. It found the claimant was entitled to 7 weeks' notice pay, having already received 1 week's notice, accrued but untaken holiday from 1 January 2024 to 31 August 2024, pension contributions of £1,942.17, commission of £1,980 (3% of £66,000), and £3,600 compensation for loss of his company car.
The tribunal said all payments save for the pension contributions were subject to PAYE. It invited the parties to agree the sums due for notice pay and holiday pay, failing which there would be a remedy hearing to determine those sums.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was struck out by judgment dated 7 November 2024 because the claimant did not have the requisite service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the dismissal was for a reason connected to the TUPE transfer and was therefore automatically unfair. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal said the claimant was entitled to 7 weeks' notice pay, having already received 1 week's notice, and awarded £3,600 for loss of his company car. The notice-pay and holiday-pay sums were left to agreement or a remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | £3,600 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal held that accrued but untaken holiday for 1 January 2024 to 31 August 2024 was payable, but it did not finally quantify the amount in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found commission of £1,980 and pension contributions of £1,942.17 were payable. The judgment did not split those items further. | Upheld | — | £3,922 |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.3(1) TUPE 2006
- Cheesman Principles
- Spijkers factors
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.