Cases2206737/2021

Claimant v HM Revenue & Customs

16 September 2025Before Employment Judge HindmarchLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Whistleblowingstruck out

Claim struck out as out of time. The effective date of termination was 30 June 2021, so the three-month time limit expired on 29 September 2021. The claim was not filed until 24 October 2021, over three weeks late, and the claimant provided no evidence as to why it was not reasonably practicable to present in time.

Detrimentstruck out

All claims against the First Respondent struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant's employment transferred to the Second Respondent under TUPE on 11 January 2021. The claimant agreed to the transfer and did not object. The First Respondent has no liability.

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Claim struck out as out of time. The effective date of termination was 30 June 2021, the three-month time limit expired on 29 September 2021, and the claim was not filed until 24 October 2021. The claimant provided no evidence as to why it was not reasonably practicable to present in time.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesnot determined

Claim allowed to proceed against the Second Respondent only. Final payments were made on 27 August 2021, placing the claim within the three-month time limit when filed on 24 October 2021.

Breach of Contractnot determined

Claim allowed to proceed against the Second Respondent only as the termination occurred on 30 June 2021, final payments were made on 27 August 2021, and the claim was filed on 24 October 2021, within the relevant time limit.

Facts

The claimant was a security guard employed by HMRC from 2004. His employment transferred under TUPE to Mitie on 11 January 2021 when HMRC outsourced its security services. After initially failing to engage with the TUPE consultation, the claimant agreed to transfer on 14 January 2021. Mitie placed him at risk of redundancy in April 2021 and confirmed his voluntary redundancy would be effective 30 June 2021, with some notice paid and some paid in lieu. The claimant did not file his ET1 until 24 October 2021.

Decision

The tribunal struck out all claims against HMRC as having no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant's employment had transferred to Mitie under TUPE. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment claims as out of time, with the effective date of termination being 30 June 2021 and no evidence as to why it was not reasonably practicable to file in time. Only the unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract claims were allowed to proceed against Mitie.

Practical note

TUPE operates by operation of law and transfers liabilities to the new employer even if the transferring employee initially fails to engage with consultation, and determining the effective date of termination requires an objective construction of the termination correspondence to ascertain whether notice was given with pay in lieu or immediate dismissal with compensation.

Legal authorities cited

Adams v GKN Sankey Ltd [1980] IRLR 416Dixon v Stenor Ltd [1993] IRLR 28Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council [1984] ILR 372Mechkarov v Citibank NA UKEAT/0041/16Hassan v Tesco Stores UKEAT/0098/19/BAHM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] IRLR 694Duniec v Travis Perkins Trading Company Limited UKEAT/0482/13Chapman v Letheby & Christopher Ltd [1981] IRLR 440

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.47BERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 s.23(2)ERA 1996 s.48(3)ERA 1996 s.111ERA 1996 s.97Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 Rule 37Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994TUPE 2006 Reg 4TUPE 2006 Reg 3(b)

Case details

Case number
2206737/2021
Decision date
16 September 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
central government
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Security Guard
Service
17 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor