Case 8002114/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Martin Letham v XPO Transport Solutions UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8002114/2024
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Martin Letham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the video hearing in Glasgow on 28 April 2025, the parties agreed that the claimant's employment transferred from XPO Transport Solutions UK Limited to Menzies Distribution on 1 June 2024 and that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 applied.
The tribunal held that the effect of regulation 4 of TUPE was that the complaints against this respondent for arrears of wages, unlawful deductions from wages and unpaid holiday pay had no reasonable prospect of success. Those complaints were therefore struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. Oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing, and neither side requested written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was grouped with arrears of wages and unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal held that, because the claimant's employment had transferred to Menzies Distribution on 1 June 2024 and TUPE applied, the complaint against this respondent had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The complaint was grouped with arrears of wages and unlawful deductions from wages. The tribunal held that, because the claimant's employment had transferred to Menzies Distribution on 1 June 2024 and TUPE applied, the complaint against this respondent had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 4 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.