Claimant v Rightsline Software UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by the 1st respondent. The tribunal awarded compensatory damages for past and future loss of earnings and loss of statutory rights, indicating the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair.
The 1st respondent failed to provide true written reasons for dismissal contrary to section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal awarded two weeks' pay (£1,400) as a penalty for this failure.
The 2nd respondent failed in its duty to inform and consult under the TUPE regulations in relation to the transfer. The 1st and 2nd respondents were found jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay £8,076.90 in compensation.
The claim for breach of contract was not upheld by the tribunal. No compensation was awarded for this claim.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the 1st respondent in the software technology sector. A TUPE transfer occurred involving the 2nd respondent. The claimant was dismissed by the 1st respondent, who also failed to provide true written reasons for the dismissal. The 2nd respondent failed to inform and consult about the TUPE transfer as required by law.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair and that the 1st respondent failed to comply with section 92 ERA 1996 regarding written reasons. The 2nd respondent breached TUPE consultation duties. The claimant was awarded £69,732.50 from the 1st respondent (including grossing up for tax) and £8,076.90 jointly and severally from both respondents for the TUPE breach. The breach of contract claim failed.
Practical note
Employers must provide truthful written reasons for dismissal and comply with TUPE information and consultation obligations, with both transferor and transferee potentially being jointly liable for TUPE failures.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6006180/2024
- Decision date
- 26 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep