Mr A Sharma and others v Travelex UK Ltd (in administration) (debarred) (“TUK”) and The Secretary of State for Business: 3314963/2020 and others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 2022 |
| Date | 29 April 2022 |
| Citation | 3314963/2020 and others |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 11 May 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Redundancy |
Case Numbers: 3314963/2020 & others
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants Mr A Sharma & others
Respondents (1) Travelex UK Limited (in administration) (debarred) (“TUK”)
(2) The Secretary of State for Business
Rule 35 participants: (1) Travelex Central Services Limited (“Central Services”)
(2) Travelex Foreign Coin Services Ltd (“Foreign Coin”)
Heard at: Watford, by Cloud
Video Platform (“CVP”)
On: 4-7 and 11 April 2022
Before: Employment Judge Hyams
Appearances:
For the claimants: In person, but with two claimants (Mr Nidhin Thomas and
Mr Anurpam Sharma) acting not only on their own behalf
but also as representatives of fellow claimants
For the rule 35 participants: Ms Laura Robinson, of counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT ON TWO PRELIMINARY
ISSUES
Introduction; the background to the hearing which started on 4 April 2022 and the
issue which was listed to be determined at that hearing
1 The hearing which started on 4 April 2022 was listed by Employment Judge (“EJ”) R
Lewis after preliminary hearings conducted by him occurred on 12 May 2021 and 25
August 2021. There was then a further preliminary hearing conducted by EJ R Lewis
on 15 February 2022 with a view to assisting in the preparation for the hearing starting
on 4 April 2022. The hearing commencing on 4 April 2022 was listed at the hearing of
25 August 2021, at which the following orders (recorded in the record of the hearing of
which there was a copy at pages 8-18 of the hearing bundle) were made:
Case Numbers: 3314963/2020 & others
2
“1. Travelex Central Services Limited and Travelex Foreign Coin Services
Limited are permitted in accordance with Rule 35 of the Tribunal’s Rules to
participate in the proceedings on the same terms as if each were a
respondent to all claims, including claims for which permission has not yet
been given to amend. The terms of participation for avoidance of doubt
include that each is subject to disclosure obligations, may call evidence,
cross examine, and make submissions to the tribunal.
2. It is confirmed for avoidance of doubt that the above paragraph does not
imply any other adjudication against either TCS or TFCS, and that the term
‘respondent’ in relation to each is used as a matter of convenience only.
...
5. The parties are subject to disclosure obligations. The duty is to supply to
each other a list and copies of any document that they may wish to refer to
at the April hearing, or which is relevant to the TUPE issue, irrespective of
which side’s case the document may appear to help. As it is accepted that
the great majority if not all these documents are in the hands of the
respondents, and the claimants may have few if any, the process is as
follows.
6. The respondents are to send the lead claimants a copy of its list and
documents by 12 November 2021 and the lead claimants to send the
respondents a list of any further relevant documents which they may hold
which NB have not already been disclosed to them by the respondents by
3 December 2021.”
2 The things which I say in the following five paragraphs below are findings of fact, which
I made because the parties were in agreement on those facts, and which I state here
because they are important as part of the factual background to the hearing which was
listed to start on 4 April 2022.
3 The business of TUK was principally the provision of foreign currency exchange
services, mainly at various retail outlets (in airports and supermarkets), but also online.
In addition, TUK provided cash collection and vaulting services and VAT refund
services.
4 TUK’s foreign exchange services were affected by at the latest late 2019 by
technological change (to which I refer further in paragraph 42 below). That led to
planning on the part of TUK at that time to reduce the number of retail outlets for the
services described in the preceding paragraph above. On 31 December 2019 there
was a ransomware cyber-attack on the business of TUK (which involved the disabling
of TUK’s IT systems, and a demand for a ransom to re-enable them). That attack had
a major effect on the operation of the business. Computers had to be rebuilt and the
profitability of the business was hugely affected. The Covid-19 lockdowns which were
Case Numbers: 3314963/2020 & others
3
then introduced in 2020 led to a halt on foreign travel from the second half of March
2020 onwards, with only a minor reduction in the restrictions on foreign travel in July
2020.
5 The circumstances described in the preceding paragraph above led to
5.1 determinations on the part of TUK to dismiss a number of its staff on the ground
that they were redundant, and
5.2 the appointment of administrators of TUK on 6 August 2020.
6 On the very day of the appointment of the administrators, the administrators
6.1 dismissed with immediate effect all of the claimants in circumstances to which I
return below, and
6.2 entered into agreements for
6.2.1 the sale of certain assets of TUK to Foreign Coin on the express basis that
the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006,
SI 2006/246, as amended (“TUPE”) did not apply to the sale; and
6.2.2 the sale of part of the central services operations of TUK to a company for
which later (it appears) Central Services was substituted, on the express
basis that TUPE did apply to that sale.
7 Lead claimants within the meaning of rule 36 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of
Procedure 2013 (“the 2013 Rules”) were agreed at the hearing of 25 August 2021. The
issue which was listed for determination at the hearing starting on 4 April 2022 was
stated in order number 12 of those made on 25 August 2021, which was in the following
terms.
“There will be a preliminary hearing in public on the nine working days 4 to 14
April 2022 starting at 10am on the first day by CVP to decide the issue: Did the
employment of any lead claimant (and therefore of the group for which s/e is rule
36 claimant) transfer from TUK to TCS or TFCS in accordance with the provisions
of TUPE 2006 and if so when. The listing is before any employment judge sitting
alone.”
8 The lead claims were grouped. Group 3 concerned a number of former employees of
TUK who worked in the Cash Processing Room at Heathrow Airport. They included
Ms Goonetillake, whose name appeared at the head of the records of the preceding
hearings. Shortly before 4 April 2022, the group 3 claims were settled. In the light of
that, I substituted the name of Mr A Sharma, one of the other lead claimants who was
acting as a representative of a number of the claimants, for that of Ms Goonetillake.
To continue reading
Request your trial