Employer fails to justify dismissals in business transfer case
📌 In brief
In this case, the Employment Tribunal found that the employer failed to give valid reasons for dismissing workers when their jobs moved to another company. The judge ruled in favour of the workers, stating they had been unfairly dismissed due to a lack of proper justification from the employer.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must show an economic, technical or organisational reason for dismissing employees in a transfer of undertaking situation to avoid unfair dismissal claims under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
📖 What the law says
This section defines key terms used throughout the Act. It specifies that an 'employee' is someone who has a contract of employment with an 'employer'. A 'worker' is defined similarly but includes individuals working under different types of contracts, provided they are not acting as clients or customers to the employer. The term 'employment' refers to the relationship under these contracts.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimants were unfairly dismissed under TUPE regulations due to lack of economic, technical or organisational reasons for dismissal.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Judge ruled that the employer did not provide an economic, technical or organisational reason for dismissing employees during a transfer of undertaking. As such, the claimants were unfairly dismissed under TUPE regulations.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Case Number: 2406794/2024, 2406797/2024,2406798/2024 &2406800/2024
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
Respondent: [redacted]
Manchester On: 5, 6 and 7 May 2026 Before: Employment Judge KM Ross
REPRESENTATION:
Claimants: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted]
1.The claimants Miss A. [APPELLANT], Mr K. [APPELLANT], Mr H. [APPELLANT] and [NAME] were employees within the meaning of Regulation (2) Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment “TUPE” regulations2006 and section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. 2. [NAME] did not object to the transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of regulation 4(7) TUPE Regulations 2006.
3. The respondent has not shown an economic technical or organisational reason for dismissal within the meaning of regulation 7 (2) TUPE Regulations 2006. 4. [NAME] were therefore unfairly dismissed pursuant to Regulation7(1) TUPE 2006.
5. There is no deduction for contributory fault in the basic or compensatory award pursuant to s122(1) or s123(6) Employment Rights Act for any of [NAME].
2 6. There is no reduction of the compensatory award for any of [NAME] under the principle in [NAME] v [COMPANY] 1987 UKHL 8.
7. There is no uplift in [NAME]’ compensation for the Respondent’s failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice and no reduction in the claimants’ compensation for their failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice.
8. The claim of [APPELLANT] is dismissed for non-attendance at this Hearing pursuant to Rule 47 Employment Rules of Procedure 2024.
9. The claims will proceed to a Remedy Hearing at 10am on 2 July 2026 at [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE].
Approved by: Employment Judge KM Ross 7 May 2026 Judgment sent to the parties on: 12 May 2026 For the Tribunal:
…………………………………
Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision. If written reasons are provided they will be placed online. All judgments (apart from judgments under Rule 51) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. If a Tribunal hearing has been recorded, you may request a transcript of the recording. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, you will have to pay for it. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings and accompanying Guidance, which can be found at www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment- rules-and-legislation-practice-directions/
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Unfair Dismissal Claim Rejected Due to Capability Issues
- Employment Tribunal Claim Dismissed: No Attendance, Insufficient Service Period
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects All Discrimination Claims Against DVLA
- Employment Tribunal Home Office Wins Disability Discrimination Case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Late Claims for Redundancy and Notice Payments Rejected by Employment Tribu…
- Employment Tribunal Claimant's Employment Claims Dismissed by Employment Judge Lancaster
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal: Claimants Not Found to Be Employees
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- An employer must provide a fair redundancy procedure to avoid an unfair dismissal claim., An employer must compensate an employee for unauthorised wage deductions and breaches of contract regarding notice pay and written statements part, An employer must not discriminate against or harass an employee on grounds of sex or disability.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- A worker is not considered an employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 if they do not meet the statutory definition., A claimant must present complaints about redundancy and notice payments within the relevant time limit, otherwise it is not just and equitable to extend this period., An employer is not required to make reasonable adjustments or avoid discriminatory practices if the claimant's allegations are not substantiated by evidence., An employer is not required to make reasonable adjustments for an employee who does not meet the legal definition of disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision found that the employer failed to provide valid reasons for dismissing employees during a business transfer.
Who was involved?
Employees and an employer were involved in the case.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the lack of evidence from the employer showing economic, technical or organisational reasons for dismissal.
Which laws or rules were applied?
TUPE Regulations 2006 and Employment Rights Act 1996 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The central reasoning was the lack of evidence showing valid reasons for dismissing employees under TUPE regulations.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was in favour of the claimants, upholding their unfair dismissal claims.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should seek legal advice to understand their rights and options under TUPE regulations.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Evidence showing reasons for dismissals during the transfer of undertaking was crucial.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from Employment Tribunals can often be appealed to an Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is highly recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for such cases.