Claimant v Cleaners Clean
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on applications to strike out. The tribunal declined to strike out the unfair dismissal claim against any respondent, finding the claimant had better than little reasonable prospects of showing he was unfairly dismissed, though the identity of the employer at the date of dismissal remained to be determined at final hearing.
The tribunal declined to strike out this claim, finding the claimant had better than little reasonable prospects of showing entitlement to a redundancy payment, subject to determination of who the employer was and whether there was in fact a redundancy situation.
The tribunal made no formal decision as to whether the claim form included a complaint of breach of contract (likely notice pay), but did not strike out any potential such claim. The issue of entitlement to notice remained to be determined.
Facts
The claimant worked as a cleaner employed by R2 (Ashley Cleaning Services) at R3's (Albion & East / Martello Hall) premises for over 2 years until around 30-31 August 2023. He was R2's only employee performing this work. On 31 August 2023 he arrived at work to find someone else doing his job. R2 alleged his employment had TUPE transferred to a new contractor. R3 alleged it had contracted with 'Cleaners Clean' (R1) or possibly other successor entities. The identity of the claimant's employer at termination and whether TUPE applied were disputed.
Decision
The tribunal refused applications by R2 and R3 to strike out the claims against them, finding the claimant had better than little reasonable prospects of succeeding. The tribunal held that complex factual questions about TUPE transfer, the identity of any transferee, and whether activities were fundamentally the same could not be determined without a full merits hearing with witness evidence. The tribunal also refused R3's application for 'default judgment' against R4.
Practical note
Strike out applications in TUPE cases involving disputes about transferee identity and whether activities are fundamentally the same will rarely succeed where core facts turn on witness evidence not yet heard.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3312412/2023
- Decision date
- 15 June 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Cleaners Clean
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- cleaner
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep