Dippy Co Ltd

Case Summary

Four claimants brought claims relating to dismissal in connection with a transfer of undertaking. The tribunal found that the claimants were employees, did not object to the transfer, and that the respondent failed to show an economic, technical or organisational reason for dismissal. Accordingly, the tribunal found the claimants were unfairly dismissed under TUPE Regulations 2006. The claim of Mr K Platt was dismissed for non-attendance at the liability hearing, and the remaining claims were adjourned to a remedy hearing.

The tribunal found the claimants were unfairly dismissed because the respondent failed to demonstrate an economic, technical or organisational reason for the dismissals under regulation 7(2) TUPE Regulations 2006, and therefore could not rely on the statutory exception to the automatic unfair dismissal provision in regulation 7(1).

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether claimants were employees under TUPE Regulations 2006
• •Whether claimants objected to transfer of undertaking
• •Whether respondent showed economic, technical or organisational reason for dismissal under regulation 7(2) TUPE Regulations 2006
• •Whether dismissal was unfair under TUPE Regulations 2006
• •Whether contributory fault applied
• •Whether Polkey reduction applied
• •Whether ACAS Code of Practice uplift/reduction applied

, 2406797/2024,2406798/2024 &2406800/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss A Hussain, Mr K Platt, Mr H Bhatti and Mr Y Muhsin. Respondent: Dippy Co. Ltd Heard at: Manchester On: 5, 6 and 7 May 2026 Before: Employment Judge KM Ross REPRESENTATION: Claimants: Mr H Bhatti, claimant Respondent: Ms Scarborough-Lang, Litigation Consultant JUDGMENT 1.The claimants Miss A. Hussain, Mr K. Platt, Mr H. Bhatti and Mr Y. Muhsin were employees within the meaning of Regulation (2) Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment “TUPE” regulations2006 and section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. 2. The above named claimants did not object to the transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of regulation 4(7) TUPE Regulations 2006. 3. The respondent has not shown an economic technical or organisational reason for dismissal within the meaning of regulation 7 (2) TUPE Regulations 2006. 4. The above named claimants were therefore unfairly dismissed pursuant to Regulation7(1) TUPE 2006. 5. There is no deduction for contributory fault in the basic or compensatory award pursuant to s122(1) or s123(6) Employment Rights Act for any of the above named claimants. , 2406797/2024,2406798/2024 &2406800/2024 2 6. There is no reduction of the compensatory award for any of the above named claimants under the principle in Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited 1987 UKHL 8. 7. There is no uplift in the above named claimants’ compensation for the Respondent’s failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice and no reduction in the claimants’ compensation for their failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice. 8. The claim of Mr K Platt is dismissed for non-attendance at this Hearing pursuant to Rule 47 Employment Rules of Procedure 2024. 9. The claims will proceed to a Remedy Hearing at 10am on 2 July 2026 at Alexandra House, 18-22 Parsonage Manchester M3 2JA. Approved by: Employment Judge KM Ross 7 May 2…