Mr J Sinnott and others v Urbanbubble Liverpool Ltd (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and others: 2406175/2020 and others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 September 2022 |
| Date | 20 September 2022 |
| Citation | 2406175/2020 and others |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 09 March 2022 |
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case Numbers: 2406175/2020
2403508/2020, 2403255/2020
2403254/2020, 2406375/2020
2406359/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants: 1. Mr J Sinnott
2. Ms F Bennett
3. Mr I Miah
4. Miss A Mosdell
5. Mr D Mosdell
Respondents: 1. Urbanbubble Liverpool Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
2. Urban Evolution
3. Nationwide Facilities Management Limited
Heard at: Manchester (by CVP)
On: 9 - 10 August and 10 September 2021 and in chambers on 6 and 23 December
2021
Before: Employment Judge McDonald (sitting alone)
Representatives
For 1st, 2nd and 3rd claimants: In person
For 4th and 5th claimants: Mr A Mohammed (Trainee Solicitor)
For the 1st respondent: Did not attend
For the 2nd respondent: Mr S El Paraiso (Managing Director)
For the 3rd respondent: Mr D Flood (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. There was no relevant TUPE transfer by way of a service provision change
from the first respondent to the second respondent.
2. There was no relevant TUPE transfer by way of a service provision change
from the first respondent to the third respondent.
RESERVED JUDGMENT
Case Numbers: 2406175/2020
2403508/2020, 2403255/2020
2403254/2020, 2406375/2020
2406359/2020
2
3. The claimants’ claims against the second and third respondents fail and are
dismissed.
4. The Tribunal will issue further directions in relation to the claimants’ claims
against the first respondent.
REASONS
Introduction
1. This was a preliminary hearing to decide the issues identified by Employment
Judge Allen in his Case Management Order dated 12 February 2021, namely:
(i) Whether there was a transfer of an undertaking (“a TUPE transfer”)
from the first respondent (Urbanbubble Liverpool Limited) to the
second respondent (Urban Evolution) or to Nationwide Group;
(ii) If there was a TUPE transfer, who was the transferor and who was the
transferee;
(iii) Which of the claimants were covered by that TUPE transfer?
2. The hearing was held on 9-10 August and 10 September 2021. I heard the
claimants’ evidence on day 1. For the reasons explained below I heard Mr El
Paraiso’s evidence for the second respondent on day 3. I reserved my decision and
directed that the parties provide written submissions. I considered the matter in
chambers on 6 December 2021. The second respondent had supplied further
evidential documents with its submissions. Final consideration of the matter in
chambers was delayed to 23 December 2021 to enable the parties to make written
submissions about the admissibility of those additional documents. I apologise to the
parties for the delay in finalising this judgment since that chambers day due to a
combination of absences from the Tribunal and other judicial commitments.
3. To try and make this judgment easier to read I have referred to the parties by
name rather than as, for example, “the third claimant”. I refer to the claimants by
name, to the first respondent as “Bubble”, the second respondent as “Evolution” and
the third respondent as “Nationwide”.
Preliminary matters
Non-attendance and liquidation of Bubble
4. Bubble had defended the claims, sent witness statements and prepared the
bundle for the preliminary hearing but did not attend at the hearing. It subsequently
To continue reading
Request your trial