Claimant v BAM Construct UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This preliminary hearing did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal identified confusion about whether a dismissal had occurred at all and ordered clarification from the first respondent.
The claim for redundancy payment was not determined at this preliminary hearing. The tribunal did not make a deposit order against this claim.
The direct race discrimination claim relating to selection for redundancy was not determined at this preliminary hearing. The tribunal did not make a deposit order against this claim.
Subject to a deposit order of £400 on the basis that it has little reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found no evidence of a TUPE transfer occurring based on the documents, with the second respondent appearing to provide labour supply rather than a business transfer, and no transfer of assets or carpentry services identified.
Subject to deposit orders of £400 against both respondents on the basis that these claims have little reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found the underlying TUPE transfer claim was weak, with no evidence supporting that a business entity transferred from the first to second respondent.
Facts
The claimant, a carpenter employed since 2009, alleged he was unfairly dismissed for redundancy. He claimed his job was changed to Fabric Engineer with reduced wages without consultation, and that a TUPE transfer occurred to the second respondent. The first respondent contended the claimant voluntarily pursued the Fabric Engineer role twice. The second respondent provided labour supply under a contract existing two years before the events, with no transfer of carpentry business assets or services. Confusion existed about whether and when dismissal occurred, with the claimant later reporting a second dismissal in June 2021.
Decision
The tribunal made deposit orders of £400 each against three TUPE-related claims (automatic unfair dismissal and two failure to inform/consult claims) on the basis they had little reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal found no evidence supporting a TUPE transfer, as the second respondent appeared to provide labour supply rather than take over a business entity. The tribunal declined to strike out claims given the claimant's recent loss of legal representation and late disclosure by respondents. Further clarification was ordered regarding whether dismissal occurred.
Practical note
When assessing TUPE claims, tribunals require clear evidence of a business entity transfer, not merely the replacement of workers by a different contractor, and deposit orders can be made against weak TUPE claims while allowing other aspects of the case to proceed.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3315178/2020
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Carpenter
- Service
- 12 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No