Cases1404340/2023

Claimant v S&K Fruit and Veg

24 October 2024Before Employment Judge LiveseyBristolremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£43,884

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalsucceeded

The First Respondent failed to defend the claim under rule 21. The tribunal heard evidence from all three claimants and was satisfied that they had been unfairly dismissed, awarding compensatory awards to each.

Redundancy Paysucceeded

The tribunal found that each claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and awarded statutory redundancy payments based on their length of service and pay.

Breach of Contractsucceeded

The tribunal found that each claimant had been dismissed without proper notice and awarded damages for breach of contract in respect of notice pay.

Holiday Paysucceeded

The First Respondent failed to pay accrued but untaken holiday entitlement on termination. The tribunal awarded each claimant their outstanding holiday pay.

Unlawful Deduction from Wagessucceeded

The tribunal found that the First Respondent had made unauthorised deductions from wages and ordered payment of the gross amounts owed to each claimant.

Otherwithdrawn

Claims for failure to provide itemised pay statements were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimants.

Facts

Three claimants worked in a fruit and vegetable shop in Frome initially owned by S.K. Fruits Ltd (Second Respondent). On 3 March 2023, they were told the business was being taken over. The shop was transferred to S&K Fruit and Veg (First Respondent), a company incorporated on 3 March 2023 with Ramy Bader as sole director. The claimants received one payslip from the First Respondent but were then dismissed in May 2023 by Elsayed Abdelmotaleb. They were not paid proper notice, holiday pay, or all wages owed.

Decision

The tribunal determined that the effective transferee was the First Respondent, which failed to file a defence. Under rule 21, the tribunal heard evidence and awarded judgment in favour of all three claimants for unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, notice pay, holiday pay, and unlawful deductions from wages. Claims against the Third Respondent were dismissed on withdrawal.

Practical note

When a transferee fails to defend TUPE-related claims, tribunals can enter default judgment under rule 21 after determining the correct employer, even where there is confusion about corporate identity and the involvement of individuals acting for undisclosed principals.

Award breakdown

Notice pay£10,757
Holiday pay£959
Redundancy pay£29,073
Unpaid wages£1,995

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

TUPE Regulations

Case details

Case number
1404340/2023
Decision date
24 October 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
default

Respondent

Sector
retail
Represented
No

Employment details

Role
retail worker in fruit and vegetable shop

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor