Cases1405184/2023

Claimant v The Taunton Cider Company Limited (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation)

5 December 2025Before Employment Judge MidgleyBristolin person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Automatic Unfair Dismissalnot determined

This preliminary hearing determined that the claimant's employment transferred to the second respondent under TUPE on 10 May 2023. The question of whether the dismissal was automatically unfair under Regulation 7(1) TUPE is reserved for the final hearing.

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

The claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal under s.111 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant had two years' continuous service. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim, including the reason for dismissal, are to be determined at the final hearing.

Breach of Contractnot determined

The claimant brought a claim for breach of contract relating to notice pay. This claim was not determined at the preliminary hearing and remains to be considered at the final hearing.

Failure to Inform & Consultnot determined

The claimant brought claims for failure to inform or consult under Regulations 13, 14, and 15 TUPE. These claims were not determined at this preliminary hearing and remain for the final hearing.

Facts

The claimant was a founding director of The Taunton Cider Company, primarily responsible for sales and marketing. The company became insolvent in 2023. Mr Syms, a consultant paid by the company's creditor Mr Twczyniak, incorporated Heritage Cider Limited in January 2023. Between January and May 2023, Heritage purchased the company's cider stock, tanks, and other assets. The company dismissed employees on 5 May 2023, and the claimant was dismissed on 10 May 2023. Heritage began trading on 10 May 2023, selling the company's bottled ciders to its existing customers. The company was placed into liquidation on 22 May 2023.

Decision

The tribunal found that there was a TUPE transfer of the claimant's employment from The Taunton Cider Company to Heritage Cider Limited on 10 May 2023. The tribunal concluded that an economic entity (the marketing and retail of ciders) transferred to Heritage and retained its identity. The claimant was assigned to that economic entity immediately before the transfer. All liabilities for the claimant's dismissal therefore transferred to Heritage under Regulation 4 TUPE.

Practical note

A TUPE transfer can occur through a series of asset purchases even where the transferee begins operating before formal liquidation, and the critical date of transfer is when operational responsibility moves to the new employer, not when all assets are formally acquired.

Legal authorities cited

Spijkers v Gebroeders Benedik Abattoir CV [1986] ECR 1119Cheesman and ors v R Brewer Contracts Ltd 2001 IRLR 144, EATForeningen af Arbejdsledere i Danmark v Daddy's Dance Hall A/S [1989] 2 CMLR 51, ECJLandsorganisationen i Danmark v Ny Mølle Kro [1989] ICR 330, ECJP Bork International A/S (in liquidation) v Foreningen af Arbejdsledere i Danmark and ors [1989] IRLR 41, ECJRajput v Commerzbank [2023] EAT 11Celtec Ltd v Astley (C-478/03) EU:C:2005:321, [2005] E.C.R. I-4389Celtec Ltd v Astley and ors 2005 ICR 1409, ECJ

Statutes

TUPE Regulations 2006 Reg 3TUPE Regulations 2006 Reg 4TUPE Regulations 2006 Reg 7ERA 1996 s.111

Case details

Case number
1405184/2023
Decision date
5 December 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Employment details

Role
Founding Director

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister