J R Obafemi (formerly Reeve) v Hospitality Management Services Ltd (in liquidation) and Others: 3314337/2023

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3314337/2023
Between
J R Obafemi (formerly Reeve)ClaimantNone (no responses entered)Respondent
Before
Employment Judge Mr A. SpencerMr. L. Pike (instructed by solicitor) for claimantDate 23 April 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]The claimant was not an employee of the second, third, fourth and fifth respondents at the relevant time. The claims against these respondents are therefore dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine them.[2]The claimant was an employee of the first respondent at the relevant time. The complaints shall proceed against the first respondent. However, the complaints are stayed against the first respondent by virtue of section 130(2) Insolvency Act 1986. Approved by: Employment Judge Mr. A. Spencer 23rd April 2025

REASONS

Facts

[1]This case came before me for final hearing on 22 and 23 April.[2]There are now five respondents to the claim. The claim form was issued against the first and second respondents. The other respondents were added at the claimant’s application during the course of the case. This appears to have been a precautionary measure due to uncertainty as to the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time.[3]None of the five respondents filed a response to the claim. None took any active role in these proceedings. None participated in the final hearing.[4]The claims and the issues to be determined are set out in case management orders made by Employment Judge Hastie on 4 November 2024.[5]I determined at the outset of this hearing to consider an additional claim that is not listed in Judge Hastie’s case management orders. That is a claim for breach of contract in respect of pension contributions. That claim was made in the claim form. However, it was omitted from the list of claims and issues set out in the case management orders. I allowed that further claim to proceed as there is no prejudice to the respondents in doing so as the claim was clearly brought in the claim form. No amendment is required.[6]I heard evidence in relation to all issues in the case as the hearing was listed as a final hearing. The evidence covered both liability and remedy. However, for reasons which will become apparent, I consider that, at this stage, the tribunal should go no further than determine the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time and should not determine liability and remedy.

Evidence

[7]I heard evidence from the claimant who was the only witness. She gave evidence under affirmation. I had the opportunity to ask her questions.[8]I took into account documents in two bundles (a main bundle and a remedy bundle).[9]No evidence was presented by the respondents. Amendment application[10]The claimant’s solicitor made an application after all the evidence was heard and immediately before closing submissions were heard. The claimant sought permission to add Steve Hussey and Pauleen Hume as the 6th and 7 th respondents. The basis for this was that they were said to be either the employers of the claimant or alternatively they were individuals who undertook discriminatory acts on behalf of corporate respondents and so could be personally liable for the discrimination complaint. The application was refused.[12]Employment tribunals have a broad discretion to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings, That power arises under rule 30 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The discretion must be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in rule 3 of dealing with cases fairly and justly.[13]The core test in considering applications to amend is the balance of injustice and hardship in allowing or refusing the application. A tribunal should consider all relevant circumstances including those identified in the case of Selkent Bus Company -v- Moore.[14]I considered:(a) The nature of the amendment - this was a substantial amendment to add two new parties.(b) The applicability of time limits - the application was made significantly out of time. The events complained of took place in July 2023. The application was made nearly two years later in April 2025. There were no good reasons for the tribunal to allow the claims against the proposed new respondents to be made so late. That would cause considerable prejudice to the proposed new respondents.(c) The timing and manner of the application – the application was made as late as it could be. It was made at the final hearing and after all evidence had been heard. There is no good reason given for this other than the insolvency of one of proposed respondents in January 2025. No explanation was given as to why the application was not made earlier other than the claimant’s solicitor has taken the case over from a colleague and did not spot the insolvency until he was preparing case in recent days. There is no reason why the claim could not have been brought against the two additional respondents from the outset and no good reason for waiting so long to make the application.(d) Granting the application would cause considerable delay and disrupt the case to the detriment of all involved and to the detriment of other tribunal users. If I had granted the application it would effectively require the case to start again with an amended claim form needing to be served on the new respondents and a two-day final hearing being wasted.(e) There is of course a prejudice to the claimant in not being able to pursue claims against the two additional respondents. However, the balance of prejudice clearly leans against granting the application. The application is refused for those reasons.

Facts

[15]Piecing together the facts of this case, particularly with regard to the identity of the claimant’s employer, is made difficult by:(a) the opaque way in which the various respondents operated their business; and(b) the fact that the respondents have taken no active role in these proceedings and have advanced no evidence.(c) The claimant was very much “kept in the dark” by the respondents and so her evidence has been of limited assistance.[16]The claimant began working at the Haycock Manor Hotel in Wansford, Peterborough (“The Hotel”) on 7th April 2020. Initially, her role was Sales Manager. Her recruitment was dealt with by the then owner of the business, Steve Hussey. During her interview, Mr. Hussey asked the claimant whether she was married and whether she was planning to have a baby in the next two years. This question was inappropriate and shows a negative attitude on the part of Mr. Hussey to maternity leave.[17]Initially, the claimant was line managed by the Hotel's general manager, Tom Wortley. Mr. Hussey became the claimant’s line manager in about August 2021 when Mr. Wortley left the business.[18]The claimant was employed under the terms of a written contract of employment. This identified her employer as Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. The contract was not produced until summer 2021. The claimant signed the contract on 20 August 2021.[19]At that time, Haycock Manor Hotel Limited was an active limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies with Company number 12421851 having been incorporated on 23 January 2020.[20]Haycock Manor Hotel Limited had in fact changed its name to Hotel Facilities Management Limited (but retained the same company number 12421851) on 23 November 2020. However, I will continue to refer to Haycock Manor Hotel Limited for convenience. The old name was used in the claimant’s contract of employment notwithstanding the fact that the company had changed its name by this stage.[21]The express terms of the written contract included:(a) A requirement for wages to be paid to the claimant on the last day of each working month by BACS transfer (para 3.1);(b) The claimant’s holiday entitlement was 5.6 weeks per year (including bank holidays). The holiday year ran from 1 January to 31 December each year (paras 9.2 and 9.3);(c) An entitlement to receive pay in lieu of unused holiday entitlement upon termination of employment (para 9.7.2);(d) An entitlement to 3 months’ notice of termination after the claimant’s employment had continued for 6 months or more (para 10.1.2);(e) A general clause (para 12.1) obliging the company to comply with its statutory obligations on enrollment of the claimant to a pension scheme. No other express reference was made to pension entitlement;(f) Once the claimant accrued at least 1 years’ service she would be entitled to one month’s full sick pay and thereafter to SSP only (para 8.1.1).[22]The claimant was promoted to sales and marketing manager in November 2021 after completing her probation period. The role included creating, marketing and delivering events. The claimant worked closely with Steve Hussey.[24]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ending April 2021 shows her employer at that time was Haycock Manor Hotel Limited.[25]Up to that point, the evidence is entirely consistent with the claimant entering into a contract of employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Limited and remaining employed by that company. However, this changed in about late November / early December 2021.[26]On 12 November 2021 the second respondent, HSAP Limited was incorporated under company number 13740440. The registered office address of HSAP Limited was the Hotel.[27]The claimant was not kept informed about the ownership of the Hotel. She was kept in the dark about such matters.[28]It appears more likely than not that HSAP Limited took over the business of the Hotel in about late November / early December 2021. This is more likely than not from following evidence:(a) HSAP limited was incorporated on 12 November 2021 shortly before the transfer. Its registered office address was the Hotel;(b) The claimant was told at later stage (but not at time) by the HR Manager for the business that there had been a so called “TUPE transfer” of the business to HSAP Limited with effect from 1 December 2021;(c) The claimant received a P45 issued in about late November 2021 which confirmed that her employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd ended with effect from 20 November 2021. The claimant did not question this at the time.(d) The claimant received pay slips from January 2022 to December 2022 which confirmed that her pay was from HSAP Ltd. There are no earlier pay slips in the hearing bundles to show precisely when the change took place.(e) The claimant later received her P60 for tax year ended April 2022 which shows that her employer at the time was HSAP Limited.(f) Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd was struck off the register of companies and dissolved on 29 March 2022.[29]It is more likely than not that the claimant’s employment transferred from Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021.[30]On 28 January 2022, the first respondent, Hospitality Management Services Limited was incorporated under company number 13879605.[31]Somewhat strangely, the claimant’s bank statements to May 2023 show that her pay was received from an account in the name of “Asprey Hotels Limited”. Asprey Hotels Limited is the 5th Respondent. The company was incorporated on 23 January 2020. No explanation has been given as to why this company made payments to the claimant. This is inconsistent with the claimant’s pay slips and the P60 referred to. Neither show Asprey Hotels Limited as the claimant’s employer. The fact that Asprey Hotels Limited appeared to be paying the claimant might be indicative of another transfer of the business to Asprey Hotels Limited. However, there is no other evidence to support this and such a transfer is inconsistent with the pay slips and P60. The fact that payments were made by Asprey Hotels Limited is also consistent with a corporate group juggling payments perhaps due to difficulties with cash flow. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the business of the Hotel transferred to Asprey Hotels Limited. The claimant’s employer remained HSAP Limited notwithstanding the fact that she received some payments via Asprey Hotels Ltd.[32]In January 2022, the claimant informed Mr. Hussey that she was pregnant. His reaction was to say “firstly, are you happy about that?.” This reaction made the claimant feel uncomfortable. Again, this comment is indicative of a negative mindset on part of Mr. Hussey regarding pregnancy and maternity.[33]After the claimant informed Mr. Hussey of her pregnancy, she was left out of meetings that she would usually have attended. She was no longer involved in discussions that she would normally have been involved in and contributed to. Again, this is indicative of an employer with a negative attitude towards pregnancy and maternity.[34]The claimant noticed that whilst her pay slips showed pension contributions had been deducted from her income, the funds did not appear to have been deposited into her pension fund. This was the case with both the employee and employer pension contributions. She raised this by e-mail with Kirsty Ross, the respondent’s HR manager, in late January 2022. She received no response. She raised the matter with Mr. Hussey by e-mail in mid-February 2022 and again received no response.[35]Hotel Facilities Management Limited (formerly Haycock Manor Hotel Limited) was dissolved and removed from the register of companies on 29 March 2022.[36]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ended April 2022 shows her employer as HSAP Limited.[37]The claimant’s maternity leave was due to start on 9th June 2022.[38]The claimant raised concerns in writing in late May 2022 regarding various matters. These included an incident on 23rd May 2022 when the claimant had felt confronted by Mr. Hussey. The incident left her feeling shaken and panicked. She had been told to leave the hotel immediately and to complete a self-certification sickness form. Relations between herself and Mr. Hussey had clearly deteriorated as the claimant asked for any further communication to be via e-mail and not in person. She described this as a measure to protect her well-being and safety. She also offered to work from home until her maternity leave began. In her letter, the claimant also raised several other issues regarding payments due to her. These included requests for outstanding tronc payments, holiday pay and pension payments. The claimant confirmed that she would raise a complaint to the pension ombudsman if the matter were not resolved. The letter also included a reference to the claimant's understanding that “our employing company changed and we were all tuped over to HSAP from 1st December 2021”. The claimant had been informed of this transfer for the first time by the HR manager for the business shortly before the claimant wrote the letter.[39]The claimant’s maternity leave commenced on 9th June 2022. She had minimal contact with the respondents while she was away on maternity leave. She attended no “keeping in touch” days and was contacted on only a couple of occasions to ask for social media log in details.[40]The issue regarding the claimant’s pension contributions was not resolved. She raised a complaint to the Pension Ombudsman in July 2022. Her complaint was determined in February 2023. The written determination indicates that the respondent to the complaint did not engage or respond to the Pension Ombudsman’s invitation for comments or submissions. The Pension Ombudsman determined that the claimant was owed £4,012.02 by way of pension contributions together with an additional £1000 for compensation for distress and inconvenience due to maladministration. The £4,012.02 figure includes both employer and employee contributions for the period from May 2020 to December 2021.The respondent to the complaint is named by the Pensions Ombudsman as “Haycock Limited”. No explanation is given as to why this company was the named respondent to the complaint. The outcome letter from the Pension Ombudsman refers to this company as “the Employer.” Again, no explanation is given for this. Nor is there other evidence pointing to this company being the claimant’s employer in the period concerned.[41]The claimant was initially due to return to work from maternity leave on 12th June 2023. The claimant made several attempts to contact Mr. Hussey and others prior to her intended return date. She heard nothing from them about her return to work and used 7 days of accrued time off in lieu and 15 days of annual leave to cover the period from 12th June to 11th July 2023 and ensure she was entitled to be paid for this period.[42]The claimant had still heard nothing about her return to work and so she emailed the respondent on 12th July 2023 to try to find out what was happening. The stress and uncertainty were impacting upon the claimant’s health and she self-certified as sick for a total of 23 days between the 12th July and 11th August 2023.[43]The respondent had not replied to the claimants e-mail dated 12th July 2023. She chased by e-mail on 20th July and again on 1st and 2nd August. She also tried contacting the respondent by telephone. She received no response.[44]By this time, the claimant was not receiving pay slips. Her bank statements showed that until May 2023 her pay was being paid to her from a bank account in the name of Asprey Hotels Ltd. However, this changed in June 2023 when, for the first time, the claimant received a payment from an entity which appeared on the claimant’s bank statement as “Hospitality Manage” The full name does not appear on the bank statement. Presumably due to a character limit.[45]It appears more likely than not that this is a reference to the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited (company number 13879605) – a company which was incorporated in January 2022.[46]On 4th August 2023, the claimant received a letter. The letter was dated 28th July 2023. The letter was on the headed note paper for Hospitality Management Services Limited (the First Respondent). Until she received the letter the claimant was unaware of the existence of this company. The letter confirmed that the claimant had been selected for redundancy. The rationale for this was that the group had acquired a number of bakeries and the marketing teams had been combined resulting in an element of duplication. The letter referred to the current commercial manager being retained in preference to the claimant on the basis that her skills and competence exceeded those of the claimant. It went on to say that it had not been impossible to identify any suitable alternative work for the claimant and that her employment would terminate with effect from 31st July 2023. The letter confirmed that the claimant would be paid for two weeks in lieu of notice, that accrued annual leave had already been added to her maternity pay and that she would be entitled to receive a statutory redundancy payment of £1929.00. The claimant was also informed of her right to appeal against the decision.[47]The claimant received a pay slip dated 31st July 2023 which, for the first time, gave the name of her employer as Hospitality Management Services Limited.[48]It appears more likely than not that there was a transfer of the claimant’s employment from HSAP Ltd to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. This is evident from:(a) The letter of dismissal coming from this company;(b) The letter referring to transfers/acquisition of business by this company;(c) The claimant receiving her July payment from this company.(d) HSAP Limited being dissolved shortly after this on 5 December 2023.[49]The claimant submitted a letter of appeal on 10th August 2023. This was sent by recorded delivery and was received. Having taken legal advice and no doubt due to the confusion as to who her employer was she addressed her letter to Hospitality Management Services Ltd / HSAP Limited / Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. After chasing by e-mail the claimant received no acknowledgement or response to her appeal.[50]ACAS early conciliation took place with Hospitality Management Services Limited, Haycock Limited and HSAP Limited from 5 September 2023 to 17 October 2023. HSAP Limited was dissolved on 5 December 2023.[52]The claim form was presented against the first and second respondents on 8 December 2023.[53]The claimant applied to the tribunal for permission to add Barker’s (Cambridge) Ltd and Asprey Hotels Ltd as further respondents on 13 December 2023.[54]The claimant applied for permission to add WJD Contracts Ltd as a further respondent on 10 Jan 2024.[55]ACAS Early Conciliation took place with:(a) Asprey Hotels Limited from 15 July 2024 to 6 August 2024; and(b) WJD Contracts Limited and from15 July 2024 to 19 Aug 2024; and(c) Barker’s Cambridge Limited from 15 July 2024 to 26 August 2024.[56]The claimant applied for numerous jobs after her dismissal without success. She eventually started employment with Colour Chronicles as Marketing manager from 1 July 2024 but her employment with the business ended after only 3 months during the probation period.[57]Since 1 October 2024, the claimant has been working in an administrative role at a local car garage for 16 hours per week earning minimum wage.[58]The claimant’s dismissal by the respondents caused her significant distress. She experienced stress due to the uncertainty as to how her family would be provided for financially. For example, she experienced sleepless nights panic attacks and eczema. The claimant’s dismissal placed her in a precarious financial position. She was forced to seek financial help from her family which she found humiliating and draining. Instead of enjoying her early motherhood she was consumed with fears about her financial future and consulting solicitors. Before and during her pregnancy the claimant took pride in her work. The dismissive treatment from the respondents undermined her confidence and left her feeling sidelined and diminished. Understandably it has also damaged her ability to trust in others both professionally and personally. Applicable Law and Conclusions[59]The applicable law and the conclusions that I have reached are as follows: The identity of the claimant’s employer[60]The first issue for the tribunal to determine is the question which of the respondents was the claimant's employer at the material time. This dictates which of the respondents is liable for the claims.[61]In closing submissions, the claimant’s solicitor invited me to find that three of the respondents were jointly and severally liable for the claimant’s complaints. These three respondents are Asprey Hotels Limited (Respondent 5), Hospitality Management Services Limited (Respondent 1) and Barker’s Cambridge Limited (Respondent 4). The basis for this submission was essentially that all three companies should be, as the claimant’s solicitor put it, “jointly and severally liable” for the claims because of the opaque way the companies have conducted themselves.[62]There is no basis for finding these three respondents are jointly and severally liable for the claimants’ complaints.[63]The claimant’s complaints lie against her employer at the material time. Consequently, the tribunal must evaluate the evidence and ask itself the question who was the claimant's employer at the material time?[64]As I have already observed, the evidence is far from clear on this issue. That is not the fault of the claimant. It is the result of the opaque way in which the various respondents have run the business and the failure to communicate this to their employees.[65]I have concluded for the reasons that I have already given that:(a) Initially the claimant was employed by Haycock Manor Hotel Limited as evidenced by her contract of employment; and(b) The claimant's employment then transferred by way of a so called “TUPE” transfer from Haycock Manor Hotel limited to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021; and(c) The claimant’s employment transferred again by way of a further socalled “TUPE” transfer from HSAP Limited to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. She was employed by that company at the time she was dismissed.[66]It follows from these findings that, as at the date of dismissal, Hospitality Management Services Limited were the claimant’s employer and is the entity that is potentially liable for the various complaints raised by the claimant in these proceedings.[67]Hospitality Management Services Limited were the subject of a winding up order made in the High Court on 29 January 2025 upon a winding up petition presented by HMRC as creditor of the company. The official receiver has been appointed as Liquidator.[68]The effect of that under section 130 Insolvency Act 1986 is that no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company or its property, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose.[69]That statutory moratorium effectively prevents the tribunal from going further with this case now that I have determined that the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited was the claimant’s employer at the material time, notwithstanding the fact that I have heard evidence on both liability and remedy. The proceedings are therefore stayed.[70]I understand that the claimant will contact the liquidator to seek to have her claims accepted within the liquidation. Approved by: Employment Judge Mr. A Spencer on 9 th June 2025

Facts

[1]This case came before me for final hearing on 22 and 23 April.[2]There are now five respondents to the claim. The claim form was issued against the first and second respondents. The other respondents were added at the claimant’s application during the course of the case. This appears to have been a precautionary measure due to uncertainty as to the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time.[3]None of the five respondents filed a response to the claim. None took any active role in these proceedings. None participated in the final hearing.[4]The claims and the issues to be determined are set out in case management orders made by Employment Judge Hastie on 4 November 2024.[5]I determined at the outset of this hearing to consider an additional claim that is not listed in Judge Hastie’s case management orders. That is a claim for breach of contract in respect of pension contributions. That claim was made in the claim form. However, it was omitted from the list of claims and issues set out in the case management orders. I allowed that further claim to proceed as there is no prejudice to the respondents in doing so as the claim was clearly brought in the claim form. No amendment is required.[6]I heard evidence in relation to all issues in the case as the hearing was listed as a final hearing. The evidence covered both liability and remedy. However, for reasons which will become apparent, I consider that, at this stage, the tribunal should go no further than determine the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time and should not determine liability and remedy.

Evidence

[7]I heard evidence from the claimant who was the only witness. She gave evidence under affirmation. I had the opportunity to ask her questions.[8]I took into account documents in two bundles (a main bundle and a remedy bundle).[9]No evidence was presented by the respondents. Amendment application[10]The claimant’s solicitor made an application after all the evidence was heard and immediately before closing submissions were heard. The claimant sought permission to add Steve Hussey and Pauleen Hume as the 6th and 7 th respondents. The basis for this was that they were said to be either the employers of the claimant or alternatively they were individuals who undertook discriminatory acts on behalf of corporate respondents and so could be personally liable for the discrimination complaint. The application was refused.[12]Employment tribunals have a broad discretion to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings, That power arises under rule 30 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The discretion must be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in rule 3 of dealing with cases fairly and justly.[13]The core test in considering applications to amend is the balance of injustice and hardship in allowing or refusing the application. A tribunal should consider all relevant circumstances including those identified in the case of Selkent Bus Company -v- Moore.[14]I considered:(a) The nature of the amendment - this was a substantial amendment to add two new parties.(b) The applicability of time limits - the application was made significantly out of time. The events complained of took place in July 2023. The application was made nearly two years later in April 2025. There were no good reasons for the tribunal to allow the claims against the proposed new respondents to be made so late. That would cause considerable prejudice to the proposed new respondents.(c) The timing and manner of the application – the application was made as late as it could be. It was made at the final hearing and after all evidence had been heard. There is no good reason given for this other than the insolvency of one of proposed respondents in January 2025. No explanation was given as to why the application was not made earlier other than the claimant’s solicitor has taken the case over from a colleague and did not spot the insolvency until he was preparing case in recent days. There is no reason why the claim could not have been brought against the two additional respondents from the outset and no good reason for waiting so long to make the application.(d) Granting the application would cause considerable delay and disrupt the case to the detriment of all involved and to the detriment of other tribunal users. If I had granted the application it would effectively require the case to start again with an amended claim form needing to be served on the new respondents and a two-day final hearing being wasted.(e) There is of course a prejudice to the claimant in not being able to pursue claims against the two additional respondents. However, the balance of prejudice clearly leans against granting the application. The application is refused for those reasons.

Facts

[15]Piecing together the facts of this case, particularly with regard to the identity of the claimant’s employer, is made difficult by:(a) the opaque way in which the various respondents operated their business; and(b) the fact that the respondents have taken no active role in these proceedings and have advanced no evidence.(c) The claimant was very much “kept in the dark” by the respondents and so her evidence has been of limited assistance.[16]The claimant began working at the Haycock Manor Hotel in Wansford, Peterborough (“The Hotel”) on 7th April 2020. Initially, her role was Sales Manager. Her recruitment was dealt with by the then owner of the business, Steve Hussey. During her interview, Mr. Hussey asked the claimant whether she was married and whether she was planning to have a baby in the next two years. This question was inappropriate and shows a negative attitude on the part of Mr. Hussey to maternity leave.[17]Initially, the claimant was line managed by the Hotel's general manager, Tom Wortley. Mr. Hussey became the claimant’s line manager in about August 2021 when Mr. Wortley left the business.[18]The claimant was employed under the terms of a written contract of employment. This identified her employer as Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. The contract was not produced until summer 2021. The claimant signed the contract on 20 August 2021.[19]At that time, Haycock Manor Hotel Limited was an active limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies with Company number 12421851 having been incorporated on 23 January 2020.[20]Haycock Manor Hotel Limited had in fact changed its name to Hotel Facilities Management Limited (but retained the same company number 12421851) on 23 November 2020. However, I will continue to refer to Haycock Manor Hotel Limited for convenience. The old name was used in the claimant’s contract of employment notwithstanding the fact that the company had changed its name by this stage.[21]The express terms of the written contract included:(a) A requirement for wages to be paid to the claimant on the last day of each working month by BACS transfer (para 3.1);(b) The claimant’s holiday entitlement was 5.6 weeks per year (including bank holidays). The holiday year ran from 1 January to 31 December each year (paras 9.2 and 9.3);(c) An entitlement to receive pay in lieu of unused holiday entitlement upon termination of employment (para 9.7.2);(d) An entitlement to 3 months’ notice of termination after the claimant’s employment had continued for 6 months or more (para 10.1.2);(e) A general clause (para 12.1) obliging the company to comply with its statutory obligations on enrollment of the claimant to a pension scheme. No other express reference was made to pension entitlement;(f) Once the claimant accrued at least 1 years’ service she would be entitled to one month’s full sick pay and thereafter to SSP only (para 8.1.1).[22]The claimant was promoted to sales and marketing manager in November 2021 after completing her probation period. The role included creating, marketing and delivering events. The claimant worked closely with Steve Hussey.[24]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ending April 2021 shows her employer at that time was Haycock Manor Hotel Limited.[25]Up to that point, the evidence is entirely consistent with the claimant entering into a contract of employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Limited and remaining employed by that company. However, this changed in about late November / early December 2021.[26]On 12 November 2021 the second respondent, HSAP Limited was incorporated under company number 13740440. The registered office address of HSAP Limited was the Hotel.[27]The claimant was not kept informed about the ownership of the Hotel. She was kept in the dark about such matters.[28]It appears more likely than not that HSAP Limited took over the business of the Hotel in about late November / early December 2021. This is more likely than not from following evidence:(a) HSAP limited was incorporated on 12 November 2021 shortly before the transfer. Its registered office address was the Hotel;(b) The claimant was told at later stage (but not at time) by the HR Manager for the business that there had been a so called “TUPE transfer” of the business to HSAP Limited with effect from 1 December 2021;(c) The claimant received a P45 issued in about late November 2021 which confirmed that her employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd ended with effect from 20 November 2021. The claimant did not question this at the time.(d) The claimant received pay slips from January 2022 to December 2022 which confirmed that her pay was from HSAP Ltd. There are no earlier pay slips in the hearing bundles to show precisely when the change took place.(e) The claimant later received her P60 for tax year ended April 2022 which shows that her employer at the time was HSAP Limited.(f) Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd was struck off the register of companies and dissolved on 29 March 2022.[29]It is more likely than not that the claimant’s employment transferred from Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021.[30]On 28 January 2022, the first respondent, Hospitality Management Services Limited was incorporated under company number 13879605.[31]Somewhat strangely, the claimant’s bank statements to May 2023 show that her pay was received from an account in the name of “Asprey Hotels Limited”. Asprey Hotels Limited is the 5th Respondent. The company was incorporated on 23 January 2020. No explanation has been given as to why this company made payments to the claimant. This is inconsistent with the claimant’s pay slips and the P60 referred to. Neither show Asprey Hotels Limited as the claimant’s employer. The fact that Asprey Hotels Limited appeared to be paying the claimant might be indicative of another transfer of the business to Asprey Hotels Limited. However, there is no other evidence to support this and such a transfer is inconsistent with the pay slips and P60. The fact that payments were made by Asprey Hotels Limited is also consistent with a corporate group juggling payments perhaps due to difficulties with cash flow. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the business of the Hotel transferred to Asprey Hotels Limited. The claimant’s employer remained HSAP Limited notwithstanding the fact that she received some payments via Asprey Hotels Ltd.[32]In January 2022, the claimant informed Mr. Hussey that she was pregnant. His reaction was to say “firstly, are you happy about that?.” This reaction made the claimant feel uncomfortable. Again, this comment is indicative of a negative mindset on part of Mr. Hussey regarding pregnancy and maternity.[33]After the claimant informed Mr. Hussey of her pregnancy, she was left out of meetings that she would usually have attended. She was no longer involved in discussions that she would normally have been involved in and contributed to. Again, this is indicative of an employer with a negative attitude towards pregnancy and maternity.[34]The claimant noticed that whilst her pay slips showed pension contributions had been deducted from her income, the funds did not appear to have been deposited into her pension fund. This was the case with both the employee and employer pension contributions. She raised this by e-mail with Kirsty Ross, the respondent’s HR manager, in late January 2022. She received no response. She raised the matter with Mr. Hussey by e-mail in mid-February 2022 and again received no response.[35]Hotel Facilities Management Limited (formerly Haycock Manor Hotel Limited) was dissolved and removed from the register of companies on 29 March 2022.[36]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ended April 2022 shows her employer as HSAP Limited.[37]The claimant’s maternity leave was due to start on 9th June 2022.[38]The claimant raised concerns in writing in late May 2022 regarding various matters. These included an incident on 23rd May 2022 when the claimant had felt confronted by Mr. Hussey. The incident left her feeling shaken and panicked. She had been told to leave the hotel immediately and to complete a self-certification sickness form. Relations between herself and Mr. Hussey had clearly deteriorated as the claimant asked for any further communication to be via e-mail and not in person. She described this as a measure to protect her well-being and safety. She also offered to work from home until her maternity leave began. In her letter, the claimant also raised several other issues regarding payments due to her. These included requests for outstanding tronc payments, holiday pay and pension payments. The claimant confirmed that she would raise a complaint to the pension ombudsman if the matter were not resolved. The letter also included a reference to the claimant's understanding that “our employing company changed and we were all tuped over to HSAP from 1st December 2021”. The claimant had been informed of this transfer for the first time by the HR manager for the business shortly before the claimant wrote the letter.[39]The claimant’s maternity leave commenced on 9th June 2022. She had minimal contact with the respondents while she was away on maternity leave. She attended no “keeping in touch” days and was contacted on only a couple of occasions to ask for social media log in details.[40]The issue regarding the claimant’s pension contributions was not resolved. She raised a complaint to the Pension Ombudsman in July 2022. Her complaint was determined in February 2023. The written determination indicates that the respondent to the complaint did not engage or respond to the Pension Ombudsman’s invitation for comments or submissions. The Pension Ombudsman determined that the claimant was owed £4,012.02 by way of pension contributions together with an additional £1000 for compensation for distress and inconvenience due to maladministration. The £4,012.02 figure includes both employer and employee contributions for the period from May 2020 to December 2021.The respondent to the complaint is named by the Pensions Ombudsman as “Haycock Limited”. No explanation is given as to why this company was the named respondent to the complaint. The outcome letter from the Pension Ombudsman refers to this company as “the Employer.” Again, no explanation is given for this. Nor is there other evidence pointing to this company being the claimant’s employer in the period concerned.[41]The claimant was initially due to return to work from maternity leave on 12th June 2023. The claimant made several attempts to contact Mr. Hussey and others prior to her intended return date. She heard nothing from them about her return to work and used 7 days of accrued time off in lieu and 15 days of annual leave to cover the period from 12th June to 11th July 2023 and ensure she was entitled to be paid for this period.[42]The claimant had still heard nothing about her return to work and so she emailed the respondent on 12th July 2023 to try to find out what was happening. The stress and uncertainty were impacting upon the claimant’s health and she self-certified as sick for a total of 23 days between the 12th July and 11th August 2023.[43]The respondent had not replied to the claimants e-mail dated 12th July 2023. She chased by e-mail on 20th July and again on 1st and 2nd August. She also tried contacting the respondent by telephone. She received no response.[44]By this time, the claimant was not receiving pay slips. Her bank statements showed that until May 2023 her pay was being paid to her from a bank account in the name of Asprey Hotels Ltd. However, this changed in June 2023 when, for the first time, the claimant received a payment from an entity which appeared on the claimant’s bank statement as “Hospitality Manage” The full name does not appear on the bank statement. Presumably due to a character limit.[45]It appears more likely than not that this is a reference to the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited (company number 13879605) – a company which was incorporated in January 2022.[46]On 4th August 2023, the claimant received a letter. The letter was dated 28th July 2023. The letter was on the headed note paper for Hospitality Management Services Limited (the First Respondent). Until she received the letter the claimant was unaware of the existence of this company. The letter confirmed that the claimant had been selected for redundancy. The rationale for this was that the group had acquired a number of bakeries and the marketing teams had been combined resulting in an element of duplication. The letter referred to the current commercial manager being retained in preference to the claimant on the basis that her skills and competence exceeded those of the claimant. It went on to say that it had not been impossible to identify any suitable alternative work for the claimant and that her employment would terminate with effect from 31st July 2023. The letter confirmed that the claimant would be paid for two weeks in lieu of notice, that accrued annual leave had already been added to her maternity pay and that she would be entitled to receive a statutory redundancy payment of £1929.00. The claimant was also informed of her right to appeal against the decision.[47]The claimant received a pay slip dated 31st July 2023 which, for the first time, gave the name of her employer as Hospitality Management Services Limited.[48]It appears more likely than not that there was a transfer of the claimant’s employment from HSAP Ltd to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. This is evident from:(a) The letter of dismissal coming from this company;(b) The letter referring to transfers/acquisition of business by this company;(c) The claimant receiving her July payment from this company.(d) HSAP Limited being dissolved shortly after this on 5 December 2023.[49]The claimant submitted a letter of appeal on 10th August 2023. This was sent by recorded delivery and was received. Having taken legal advice and no doubt due to the confusion as to who her employer was she addressed her letter to Hospitality Management Services Ltd / HSAP Limited / Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. After chasing by e-mail the claimant received no acknowledgement or response to her appeal.[50]ACAS early conciliation took place with Hospitality Management Services Limited, Haycock Limited and HSAP Limited from 5 September 2023 to 17 October 2023. HSAP Limited was dissolved on 5 December 2023.[52]The claim form was presented against the first and second respondents on 8 December 2023.[53]The claimant applied to the tribunal for permission to add Barker’s (Cambridge) Ltd and Asprey Hotels Ltd as further respondents on 13 December 2023.[54]The claimant applied for permission to add WJD Contracts Ltd as a further respondent on 10 Jan 2024.[55]ACAS Early Conciliation took place with:(a) Asprey Hotels Limited from 15 July 2024 to 6 August 2024; and(b) WJD Contracts Limited and from15 July 2024 to 19 Aug 2024; and(c) Barker’s Cambridge Limited from 15 July 2024 to 26 August 2024.[56]The claimant applied for numerous jobs after her dismissal without success. She eventually started employment with Colour Chronicles as Marketing manager from 1 July 2024 but her employment with the business ended after only 3 months during the probation period.[57]Since 1 October 2024, the claimant has been working in an administrative role at a local car garage for 16 hours per week earning minimum wage.[58]The claimant’s dismissal by the respondents caused her significant distress. She experienced stress due to the uncertainty as to how her family would be provided for financially. For example, she experienced sleepless nights panic attacks and eczema. The claimant’s dismissal placed her in a precarious financial position. She was forced to seek financial help from her family which she found humiliating and draining. Instead of enjoying her early motherhood she was consumed with fears about her financial future and consulting solicitors. Before and during her pregnancy the claimant took pride in her work. The dismissive treatment from the respondents undermined her confidence and left her feeling sidelined and diminished. Understandably it has also damaged her ability to trust in others both professionally and personally. Applicable Law and Conclusions[59]The applicable law and the conclusions that I have reached are as follows: The identity of the claimant’s employer[60]The first issue for the tribunal to determine is the question which of the respondents was the claimant's employer at the material time. This dictates which of the respondents is liable for the claims.[61]In closing submissions, the claimant’s solicitor invited me to find that three of the respondents were jointly and severally liable for the claimant’s complaints. These three respondents are Asprey Hotels Limited (Respondent 5), Hospitality Management Services Limited (Respondent 1) and Barker’s Cambridge Limited (Respondent 4). The basis for this submission was essentially that all three companies should be, as the claimant’s solicitor put it, “jointly and severally liable” for the claims because of the opaque way the companies have conducted themselves.[62]There is no basis for finding these three respondents are jointly and severally liable for the claimants’ complaints.[63]The claimant’s complaints lie against her employer at the material time. Consequently, the tribunal must evaluate the evidence and ask itself the question who was the claimant's employer at the material time?[64]As I have already observed, the evidence is far from clear on this issue. That is not the fault of the claimant. It is the result of the opaque way in which the various respondents have run the business and the failure to communicate this to their employees.[65]I have concluded for the reasons that I have already given that:(a) Initially the claimant was employed by Haycock Manor Hotel Limited as evidenced by her contract of employment; and(b) The claimant's employment then transferred by way of a so called “TUPE” transfer from Haycock Manor Hotel limited to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021; and(c) The claimant’s employment transferred again by way of a further socalled “TUPE” transfer from HSAP Limited to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. She was employed by that company at the time she was dismissed.[66]It follows from these findings that, as at the date of dismissal, Hospitality Management Services Limited were the claimant’s employer and is the entity that is potentially liable for the various complaints raised by the claimant in these proceedings.[67]Hospitality Management Services Limited were the subject of a winding up order made in the High Court on 29 January 2025 upon a winding up petition presented by HMRC as creditor of the company. The official receiver has been appointed as Liquidator.[68]The effect of that under section 130 Insolvency Act 1986 is that no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company or its property, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose.[69]That statutory moratorium effectively prevents the tribunal from going further with this case now that I have determined that the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited was the claimant’s employer at the material time, notwithstanding the fact that I have heard evidence on both liability and remedy. The proceedings are therefore stayed.[70]I understand that the claimant will contact the liquidator to seek to have her claims accepted within the liquidation. Approved by: Employment Judge Mr. A Spencer on 9 th June 2025[1]This case came before me for final hearing on 22 and 23 April.[2]There are now five respondents to the claim. The claim form was issued against the first and second respondents. The other respondents were added at the claimant’s application during the course of the case. This appears to have been a precautionary measure due to uncertainty as to the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time.[3]None of the five respondents filed a response to the claim. None took any active role in these proceedings. None participated in the final hearing.[4]The claims and the issues to be determined are set out in case management orders made by Employment Judge Hastie on 4 November 2024.[5]I determined at the outset of this hearing to consider an additional claim that is not listed in Judge Hastie’s case management orders. That is a claim for breach of contract in respect of pension contributions. That claim was made in the claim form. However, it was omitted from the list of claims and issues set out in the case management orders. I allowed that further claim to proceed as there is no prejudice to the respondents in doing so as the claim was clearly brought in the claim form. No amendment is required.[6]I heard evidence in relation to all issues in the case as the hearing was listed as a final hearing. The evidence covered both liability and remedy. However, for reasons which will become apparent, I consider that, at this stage, the tribunal should go no further than determine the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time and should not determine liability and remedy.

Evidence

[7]I heard evidence from the claimant who was the only witness. She gave evidence under affirmation. I had the opportunity to ask her questions.[8]I took into account documents in two bundles (a main bundle and a remedy bundle).[9]No evidence was presented by the respondents. Amendment application[10]The claimant’s solicitor made an application after all the evidence was heard and immediately before closing submissions were heard. The claimant sought permission to add Steve Hussey and Pauleen Hume as the 6th and 7 th respondents. The basis for this was that they were said to be either the employers of the claimant or alternatively they were individuals who undertook discriminatory acts on behalf of corporate respondents and so could be personally liable for the discrimination complaint. The application was refused.[12]Employment tribunals have a broad discretion to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings, That power arises under rule 30 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The discretion must be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in rule 3 of dealing with cases fairly and justly.[13]The core test in considering applications to amend is the balance of injustice and hardship in allowing or refusing the application. A tribunal should consider all relevant circumstances including those identified in the case of Selkent Bus Company -v- Moore.[14]I considered:(a) The nature of the amendment - this was a substantial amendment to add two new parties.(b) The applicability of time limits - the application was made significantly out of time. The events complained of took place in July 2023. The application was made nearly two years later in April 2025. There were no good reasons for the tribunal to allow the claims against the proposed new respondents to be made so late. That would cause considerable prejudice to the proposed new respondents.(c) The timing and manner of the application – the application was made as late as it could be. It was made at the final hearing and after all evidence had been heard. There is no good reason given for this other than the insolvency of one of proposed respondents in January 2025. No explanation was given as to why the application was not made earlier other than the claimant’s solicitor has taken the case over from a colleague and did not spot the insolvency until he was preparing case in recent days. There is no reason why the claim could not have been brought against the two additional respondents from the outset and no good reason for waiting so long to make the application.(d) Granting the application would cause considerable delay and disrupt the case to the detriment of all involved and to the detriment of other tribunal users. If I had granted the application it would effectively require the case to start again with an amended claim form needing to be served on the new respondents and a two-day final hearing being wasted.(e) There is of course a prejudice to the claimant in not being able to pursue claims against the two additional respondents. However, the balance of prejudice clearly leans against granting the application. The application is refused for those reasons.

Facts

[15]Piecing together the facts of this case, particularly with regard to the identity of the claimant’s employer, is made difficult by:(a) the opaque way in which the various respondents operated their business; and(b) the fact that the respondents have taken no active role in these proceedings and have advanced no evidence.(c) The claimant was very much “kept in the dark” by the respondents and so her evidence has been of limited assistance.[16]The claimant began working at the Haycock Manor Hotel in Wansford, Peterborough (“The Hotel”) on 7th April 2020. Initially, her role was Sales Manager. Her recruitment was dealt with by the then owner of the business, Steve Hussey. During her interview, Mr. Hussey asked the claimant whether she was married and whether she was planning to have a baby in the next two years. This question was inappropriate and shows a negative attitude on the part of Mr. Hussey to maternity leave.[17]Initially, the claimant was line managed by the Hotel's general manager, Tom Wortley. Mr. Hussey became the claimant’s line manager in about August 2021 when Mr. Wortley left the business.[18]The claimant was employed under the terms of a written contract of employment. This identified her employer as Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. The contract was not produced until summer 2021. The claimant signed the contract on 20 August 2021.[19]At that time, Haycock Manor Hotel Limited was an active limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies with Company number 12421851 having been incorporated on 23 January 2020.[20]Haycock Manor Hotel Limited had in fact changed its name to Hotel Facilities Management Limited (but retained the same company number 12421851) on 23 November 2020. However, I will continue to refer to Haycock Manor Hotel Limited for convenience. The old name was used in the claimant’s contract of employment notwithstanding the fact that the company had changed its name by this stage.[21]The express terms of the written contract included:(a) A requirement for wages to be paid to the claimant on the last day of each working month by BACS transfer (para 3.1);(b) The claimant’s holiday entitlement was 5.6 weeks per year (including bank holidays). The holiday year ran from 1 January to 31 December each year (paras 9.2 and 9.3);(c) An entitlement to receive pay in lieu of unused holiday entitlement upon termination of employment (para 9.7.2);(d) An entitlement to 3 months’ notice of termination after the claimant’s employment had continued for 6 months or more (para 10.1.2);(e) A general clause (para 12.1) obliging the company to comply with its statutory obligations on enrollment of the claimant to a pension scheme. No other express reference was made to pension entitlement;(f) Once the claimant accrued at least 1 years’ service she would be entitled to one month’s full sick pay and thereafter to SSP only (para 8.1.1).[22]The claimant was promoted to sales and marketing manager in November 2021 after completing her probation period. The role included creating, marketing and delivering events. The claimant worked closely with Steve Hussey.[24]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ending April 2021 shows her employer at that time was Haycock Manor Hotel Limited.[25]Up to that point, the evidence is entirely consistent with the claimant entering into a contract of employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Limited and remaining employed by that company. However, this changed in about late November / early December 2021.[26]On 12 November 2021 the second respondent, HSAP Limited was incorporated under company number 13740440. The registered office address of HSAP Limited was the Hotel.[27]The claimant was not kept informed about the ownership of the Hotel. She was kept in the dark about such matters.[28]It appears more likely than not that HSAP Limited took over the business of the Hotel in about late November / early December 2021. This is more likely than not from following evidence:(a) HSAP limited was incorporated on 12 November 2021 shortly before the transfer. Its registered office address was the Hotel;(b) The claimant was told at later stage (but not at time) by the HR Manager for the business that there had been a so called “TUPE transfer” of the business to HSAP Limited with effect from 1 December 2021;(c) The claimant received a P45 issued in about late November 2021 which confirmed that her employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd ended with effect from 20 November 2021. The claimant did not question this at the time.(d) The claimant received pay slips from January 2022 to December 2022 which confirmed that her pay was from HSAP Ltd. There are no earlier pay slips in the hearing bundles to show precisely when the change took place.(e) The claimant later received her P60 for tax year ended April 2022 which shows that her employer at the time was HSAP Limited.(f) Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd was struck off the register of companies and dissolved on 29 March 2022.[29]It is more likely than not that the claimant’s employment transferred from Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021.[30]On 28 January 2022, the first respondent, Hospitality Management Services Limited was incorporated under company number 13879605.[31]Somewhat strangely, the claimant’s bank statements to May 2023 show that her pay was received from an account in the name of “Asprey Hotels Limited”. Asprey Hotels Limited is the 5th Respondent. The company was incorporated on 23 January 2020. No explanation has been given as to why this company made payments to the claimant. This is inconsistent with the claimant’s pay slips and the P60 referred to. Neither show Asprey Hotels Limited as the claimant’s employer. The fact that Asprey Hotels Limited appeared to be paying the claimant might be indicative of another transfer of the business to Asprey Hotels Limited. However, there is no other evidence to support this and such a transfer is inconsistent with the pay slips and P60. The fact that payments were made by Asprey Hotels Limited is also consistent with a corporate group juggling payments perhaps due to difficulties with cash flow. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the business of the Hotel transferred to Asprey Hotels Limited. The claimant’s employer remained HSAP Limited notwithstanding the fact that she received some payments via Asprey Hotels Ltd.[32]In January 2022, the claimant informed Mr. Hussey that she was pregnant. His reaction was to say “firstly, are you happy about that?.” This reaction made the claimant feel uncomfortable. Again, this comment is indicative of a negative mindset on part of Mr. Hussey regarding pregnancy and maternity.[33]After the claimant informed Mr. Hussey of her pregnancy, she was left out of meetings that she would usually have attended. She was no longer involved in discussions that she would normally have been involved in and contributed to. Again, this is indicative of an employer with a negative attitude towards pregnancy and maternity.[34]The claimant noticed that whilst her pay slips showed pension contributions had been deducted from her income, the funds did not appear to have been deposited into her pension fund. This was the case with both the employee and employer pension contributions. She raised this by e-mail with Kirsty Ross, the respondent’s HR manager, in late January 2022. She received no response. She raised the matter with Mr. Hussey by e-mail in mid-February 2022 and again received no response.[35]Hotel Facilities Management Limited (formerly Haycock Manor Hotel Limited) was dissolved and removed from the register of companies on 29 March 2022.[36]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ended April 2022 shows her employer as HSAP Limited.[37]The claimant’s maternity leave was due to start on 9th June 2022.[38]The claimant raised concerns in writing in late May 2022 regarding various matters. These included an incident on 23rd May 2022 when the claimant had felt confronted by Mr. Hussey. The incident left her feeling shaken and panicked. She had been told to leave the hotel immediately and to complete a self-certification sickness form. Relations between herself and Mr. Hussey had clearly deteriorated as the claimant asked for any further communication to be via e-mail and not in person. She described this as a measure to protect her well-being and safety. She also offered to work from home until her maternity leave began. In her letter, the claimant also raised several other issues regarding payments due to her. These included requests for outstanding tronc payments, holiday pay and pension payments. The claimant confirmed that she would raise a complaint to the pension ombudsman if the matter were not resolved. The letter also included a reference to the claimant's understanding that “our employing company changed and we were all tuped over to HSAP from 1st December 2021”. The claimant had been informed of this transfer for the first time by the HR manager for the business shortly before the claimant wrote the letter.[39]The claimant’s maternity leave commenced on 9th June 2022. She had minimal contact with the respondents while she was away on maternity leave. She attended no “keeping in touch” days and was contacted on only a couple of occasions to ask for social media log in details.[40]The issue regarding the claimant’s pension contributions was not resolved. She raised a complaint to the Pension Ombudsman in July 2022. Her complaint was determined in February 2023. The written determination indicates that the respondent to the complaint did not engage or respond to the Pension Ombudsman’s invitation for comments or submissions. The Pension Ombudsman determined that the claimant was owed £4,012.02 by way of pension contributions together with an additional £1000 for compensation for distress and inconvenience due to maladministration. The £4,012.02 figure includes both employer and employee contributions for the period from May 2020 to December 2021.The respondent to the complaint is named by the Pensions Ombudsman as “Haycock Limited”. No explanation is given as to why this company was the named respondent to the complaint. The outcome letter from the Pension Ombudsman refers to this company as “the Employer.” Again, no explanation is given for this. Nor is there other evidence pointing to this company being the claimant’s employer in the period concerned.[41]The claimant was initially due to return to work from maternity leave on 12th June 2023. The claimant made several attempts to contact Mr. Hussey and others prior to her intended return date. She heard nothing from them about her return to work and used 7 days of accrued time off in lieu and 15 days of annual leave to cover the period from 12th June to 11th July 2023 and ensure she was entitled to be paid for this period.[42]The claimant had still heard nothing about her return to work and so she emailed the respondent on 12th July 2023 to try to find out what was happening. The stress and uncertainty were impacting upon the claimant’s health and she self-certified as sick for a total of 23 days between the 12th July and 11th August 2023.[43]The respondent had not replied to the claimants e-mail dated 12th July 2023. She chased by e-mail on 20th July and again on 1st and 2nd August. She also tried contacting the respondent by telephone. She received no response.[44]By this time, the claimant was not receiving pay slips. Her bank statements showed that until May 2023 her pay was being paid to her from a bank account in the name of Asprey Hotels Ltd. However, this changed in June 2023 when, for the first time, the claimant received a payment from an entity which appeared on the claimant’s bank statement as “Hospitality Manage” The full name does not appear on the bank statement. Presumably due to a character limit.[45]It appears more likely than not that this is a reference to the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited (company number 13879605) – a company which was incorporated in January 2022.[46]On 4th August 2023, the claimant received a letter. The letter was dated 28th July 2023. The letter was on the headed note paper for Hospitality Management Services Limited (the First Respondent). Until she received the letter the claimant was unaware of the existence of this company. The letter confirmed that the claimant had been selected for redundancy. The rationale for this was that the group had acquired a number of bakeries and the marketing teams had been combined resulting in an element of duplication. The letter referred to the current commercial manager being retained in preference to the claimant on the basis that her skills and competence exceeded those of the claimant. It went on to say that it had not been impossible to identify any suitable alternative work for the claimant and that her employment would terminate with effect from 31st July 2023. The letter confirmed that the claimant would be paid for two weeks in lieu of notice, that accrued annual leave had already been added to her maternity pay and that she would be entitled to receive a statutory redundancy payment of £1929.00. The claimant was also informed of her right to appeal against the decision.[47]The claimant received a pay slip dated 31st July 2023 which, for the first time, gave the name of her employer as Hospitality Management Services Limited.[48]It appears more likely than not that there was a transfer of the claimant’s employment from HSAP Ltd to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. This is evident from:(a) The letter of dismissal coming from this company;(b) The letter referring to transfers/acquisition of business by this company;(c) The claimant receiving her July payment from this company.(d) HSAP Limited being dissolved shortly after this on 5 December 2023.[49]The claimant submitted a letter of appeal on 10th August 2023. This was sent by recorded delivery and was received. Having taken legal advice and no doubt due to the confusion as to who her employer was she addressed her letter to Hospitality Management Services Ltd / HSAP Limited / Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. After chasing by e-mail the claimant received no acknowledgement or response to her appeal.[50]ACAS early conciliation took place with Hospitality Management Services Limited, Haycock Limited and HSAP Limited from 5 September 2023 to 17 October 2023. HSAP Limited was dissolved on 5 December 2023.[52]The claim form was presented against the first and second respondents on 8 December 2023.[53]The claimant applied to the tribunal for permission to add Barker’s (Cambridge) Ltd and Asprey Hotels Ltd as further respondents on 13 December 2023.[54]The claimant applied for permission to add WJD Contracts Ltd as a further respondent on 10 Jan 2024.[55]ACAS Early Conciliation took place with:(a) Asprey Hotels Limited from 15 July 2024 to 6 August 2024; and(b) WJD Contracts Limited and from15 July 2024 to 19 Aug 2024; and(c) Barker’s Cambridge Limited from 15 July 2024 to 26 August 2024.[56]The claimant applied for numerous jobs after her dismissal without success. She eventually started employment with Colour Chronicles as Marketing manager from 1 July 2024 but her employment with the business ended after only 3 months during the probation period.[57]Since 1 October 2024, the claimant has been working in an administrative role at a local car garage for 16 hours per week earning minimum wage.[58]The claimant’s dismissal by the respondents caused her significant distress. She experienced stress due to the uncertainty as to how her family would be provided for financially. For example, she experienced sleepless nights panic attacks and eczema. The claimant’s dismissal placed her in a precarious financial position. She was forced to seek financial help from her family which she found humiliating and draining. Instead of enjoying her early motherhood she was consumed with fears about her financial future and consulting solicitors. Before and during her pregnancy the claimant took pride in her work. The dismissive treatment from the respondents undermined her confidence and left her feeling sidelined and diminished. Understandably it has also damaged her ability to trust in others both professionally and personally. Applicable Law and Conclusions[59]The applicable law and the conclusions that I have reached are as follows: The identity of the claimant’s employer[60]The first issue for the tribunal to determine is the question which of the respondents was the claimant's employer at the material time. This dictates which of the respondents is liable for the claims.[61]In closing submissions, the claimant’s solicitor invited me to find that three of the respondents were jointly and severally liable for the claimant’s complaints. These three respondents are Asprey Hotels Limited (Respondent 5), Hospitality Management Services Limited (Respondent 1) and Barker’s Cambridge Limited (Respondent 4). The basis for this submission was essentially that all three companies should be, as the claimant’s solicitor put it, “jointly and severally liable” for the claims because of the opaque way the companies have conducted themselves.[62]There is no basis for finding these three respondents are jointly and severally liable for the claimants’ complaints.[63]The claimant’s complaints lie against her employer at the material time. Consequently, the tribunal must evaluate the evidence and ask itself the question who was the claimant's employer at the material time?[64]As I have already observed, the evidence is far from clear on this issue. That is not the fault of the claimant. It is the result of the opaque way in which the various respondents have run the business and the failure to communicate this to their employees.[65]I have concluded for the reasons that I have already given that:(a) Initially the claimant was employed by Haycock Manor Hotel Limited as evidenced by her contract of employment; and(b) The claimant's employment then transferred by way of a so called “TUPE” transfer from Haycock Manor Hotel limited to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021; and(c) The claimant’s employment transferred again by way of a further socalled “TUPE” transfer from HSAP Limited to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. She was employed by that company at the time she was dismissed.[66]It follows from these findings that, as at the date of dismissal, Hospitality Management Services Limited were the claimant’s employer and is the entity that is potentially liable for the various complaints raised by the claimant in these proceedings.[67]Hospitality Management Services Limited were the subject of a winding up order made in the High Court on 29 January 2025 upon a winding up petition presented by HMRC as creditor of the company. The official receiver has been appointed as Liquidator.[68]The effect of that under section 130 Insolvency Act 1986 is that no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company or its property, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose.[69]That statutory moratorium effectively prevents the tribunal from going further with this case now that I have determined that the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited was the claimant’s employer at the material time, notwithstanding the fact that I have heard evidence on both liability and remedy. The proceedings are therefore stayed.[70]I understand that the claimant will contact the liquidator to seek to have her claims accepted within the liquidation. Approved by: Employment Judge Mr. A Spencer on 9 th June 2025[1]This case came before me for final hearing on 22 and 23 April.[2]There are now five respondents to the claim. The claim form was issued against the first and second respondents. The other respondents were added at the claimant’s application during the course of the case. This appears to have been a precautionary measure due to uncertainty as to the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time.[3]None of the five respondents filed a response to the claim. None took any active role in these proceedings. None participated in the final hearing.[4]The claims and the issues to be determined are set out in case management orders made by Employment Judge Hastie on 4 November 2024.[5]I determined at the outset of this hearing to consider an additional claim that is not listed in Judge Hastie’s case management orders. That is a claim for breach of contract in respect of pension contributions. That claim was made in the claim form. However, it was omitted from the list of claims and issues set out in the case management orders. I allowed that further claim to proceed as there is no prejudice to the respondents in doing so as the claim was clearly brought in the claim form. No amendment is required.[6]I heard evidence in relation to all issues in the case as the hearing was listed as a final hearing. The evidence covered both liability and remedy. However, for reasons which will become apparent, I consider that, at this stage, the tribunal should go no further than determine the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time and should not determine liability and remedy.

Evidence

[7]I heard evidence from the claimant who was the only witness. She gave evidence under affirmation. I had the opportunity to ask her questions.[8]I took into account documents in two bundles (a main bundle and a remedy bundle).[9]No evidence was presented by the respondents. Amendment application[10]The claimant’s solicitor made an application after all the evidence was heard and immediately before closing submissions were heard. The claimant sought permission to add Steve Hussey and Pauleen Hume as the 6th and 7 th respondents. The basis for this was that they were said to be either the employers of the claimant or alternatively they were individuals who undertook discriminatory acts on behalf of corporate respondents and so could be personally liable for the discrimination complaint. The application was refused.[12]Employment tribunals have a broad discretion to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings, That power arises under rule 30 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The discretion must be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in rule 3 of dealing with cases fairly and justly.[13]The core test in considering applications to amend is the balance of injustice and hardship in allowing or refusing the application. A tribunal should consider all relevant circumstances including those identified in the case of Selkent Bus Company -v- Moore.[14]I considered:(a) The nature of the amendment - this was a substantial amendment to add two new parties.(b) The applicability of time limits - the application was made significantly out of time. The events complained of took place in July 2023. The application was made nearly two years later in April 2025. There were no good reasons for the tribunal to allow the claims against the proposed new respondents to be made so late. That would cause considerable prejudice to the proposed new respondents.(c) The timing and manner of the application – the application was made as late as it could be. It was made at the final hearing and after all evidence had been heard. There is no good reason given for this other than the insolvency of one of proposed respondents in January 2025. No explanation was given as to why the application was not made earlier other than the claimant’s solicitor has taken the case over from a colleague and did not spot the insolvency until he was preparing case in recent days. There is no reason why the claim could not have been brought against the two additional respondents from the outset and no good reason for waiting so long to make the application.(d) Granting the application would cause considerable delay and disrupt the case to the detriment of all involved and to the detriment of other tribunal users. If I had granted the application it would effectively require the case to start again with an amended claim form needing to be served on the new respondents and a two-day final hearing being wasted.(e) There is of course a prejudice to the claimant in not being able to pursue claims against the two additional respondents. However, the balance of prejudice clearly leans against granting the application. The application is refused for those reasons.

Facts

[15]Piecing together the facts of this case, particularly with regard to the identity of the claimant’s employer, is made difficult by:(a) the opaque way in which the various respondents operated their business; and(b) the fact that the respondents have taken no active role in these proceedings and have advanced no evidence.(c) The claimant was very much “kept in the dark” by the respondents and so her evidence has been of limited assistance.[16]The claimant began working at the Haycock Manor Hotel in Wansford, Peterborough (“The Hotel”) on 7th April 2020. Initially, her role was Sales Manager. Her recruitment was dealt with by the then owner of the business, Steve Hussey. During her interview, Mr. Hussey asked the claimant whether she was married and whether she was planning to have a baby in the next two years. This question was inappropriate and shows a negative attitude on the part of Mr. Hussey to maternity leave.[17]Initially, the claimant was line managed by the Hotel's general manager, Tom Wortley. Mr. Hussey became the claimant’s line manager in about August 2021 when Mr. Wortley left the business.[18]The claimant was employed under the terms of a written contract of employment. This identified her employer as Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. The contract was not produced until summer 2021. The claimant signed the contract on 20 August 2021.[19]At that time, Haycock Manor Hotel Limited was an active limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies with Company number 12421851 having been incorporated on 23 January 2020.[20]Haycock Manor Hotel Limited had in fact changed its name to Hotel Facilities Management Limited (but retained the same company number 12421851) on 23 November 2020. However, I will continue to refer to Haycock Manor Hotel Limited for convenience. The old name was used in the claimant’s contract of employment notwithstanding the fact that the company had changed its name by this stage.[21]The express terms of the written contract included:(a) A requirement for wages to be paid to the claimant on the last day of each working month by BACS transfer (para 3.1);(b) The claimant’s holiday entitlement was 5.6 weeks per year (including bank holidays). The holiday year ran from 1 January to 31 December each year (paras 9.2 and 9.3);(c) An entitlement to receive pay in lieu of unused holiday entitlement upon termination of employment (para 9.7.2);(d) An entitlement to 3 months’ notice of termination after the claimant’s employment had continued for 6 months or more (para 10.1.2);(e) A general clause (para 12.1) obliging the company to comply with its statutory obligations on enrollment of the claimant to a pension scheme. No other express reference was made to pension entitlement;(f) Once the claimant accrued at least 1 years’ service she would be entitled to one month’s full sick pay and thereafter to SSP only (para 8.1.1).[22]The claimant was promoted to sales and marketing manager in November 2021 after completing her probation period. The role included creating, marketing and delivering events. The claimant worked closely with Steve Hussey.[24]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ending April 2021 shows her employer at that time was Haycock Manor Hotel Limited.[25]Up to that point, the evidence is entirely consistent with the claimant entering into a contract of employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Limited and remaining employed by that company. However, this changed in about late November / early December 2021.[26]On 12 November 2021 the second respondent, HSAP Limited was incorporated under company number 13740440. The registered office address of HSAP Limited was the Hotel.[27]The claimant was not kept informed about the ownership of the Hotel. She was kept in the dark about such matters.[28]It appears more likely than not that HSAP Limited took over the business of the Hotel in about late November / early December 2021. This is more likely than not from following evidence:(a) HSAP limited was incorporated on 12 November 2021 shortly before the transfer. Its registered office address was the Hotel;(b) The claimant was told at later stage (but not at time) by the HR Manager for the business that there had been a so called “TUPE transfer” of the business to HSAP Limited with effect from 1 December 2021;(c) The claimant received a P45 issued in about late November 2021 which confirmed that her employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd ended with effect from 20 November 2021. The claimant did not question this at the time.(d) The claimant received pay slips from January 2022 to December 2022 which confirmed that her pay was from HSAP Ltd. There are no earlier pay slips in the hearing bundles to show precisely when the change took place.(e) The claimant later received her P60 for tax year ended April 2022 which shows that her employer at the time was HSAP Limited.(f) Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd was struck off the register of companies and dissolved on 29 March 2022.[29]It is more likely than not that the claimant’s employment transferred from Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021.[30]On 28 January 2022, the first respondent, Hospitality Management Services Limited was incorporated under company number 13879605.[31]Somewhat strangely, the claimant’s bank statements to May 2023 show that her pay was received from an account in the name of “Asprey Hotels Limited”. Asprey Hotels Limited is the 5th Respondent. The company was incorporated on 23 January 2020. No explanation has been given as to why this company made payments to the claimant. This is inconsistent with the claimant’s pay slips and the P60 referred to. Neither show Asprey Hotels Limited as the claimant’s employer. The fact that Asprey Hotels Limited appeared to be paying the claimant might be indicative of another transfer of the business to Asprey Hotels Limited. However, there is no other evidence to support this and such a transfer is inconsistent with the pay slips and P60. The fact that payments were made by Asprey Hotels Limited is also consistent with a corporate group juggling payments perhaps due to difficulties with cash flow. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the business of the Hotel transferred to Asprey Hotels Limited. The claimant’s employer remained HSAP Limited notwithstanding the fact that she received some payments via Asprey Hotels Ltd.[32]In January 2022, the claimant informed Mr. Hussey that she was pregnant. His reaction was to say “firstly, are you happy about that?.” This reaction made the claimant feel uncomfortable. Again, this comment is indicative of a negative mindset on part of Mr. Hussey regarding pregnancy and maternity.[33]After the claimant informed Mr. Hussey of her pregnancy, she was left out of meetings that she would usually have attended. She was no longer involved in discussions that she would normally have been involved in and contributed to. Again, this is indicative of an employer with a negative attitude towards pregnancy and maternity.[34]The claimant noticed that whilst her pay slips showed pension contributions had been deducted from her income, the funds did not appear to have been deposited into her pension fund. This was the case with both the employee and employer pension contributions. She raised this by e-mail with Kirsty Ross, the respondent’s HR manager, in late January 2022. She received no response. She raised the matter with Mr. Hussey by e-mail in mid-February 2022 and again received no response.[35]Hotel Facilities Management Limited (formerly Haycock Manor Hotel Limited) was dissolved and removed from the register of companies on 29 March 2022.[36]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ended April 2022 shows her employer as HSAP Limited.[37]The claimant’s maternity leave was due to start on 9th June 2022.[38]The claimant raised concerns in writing in late May 2022 regarding various matters. These included an incident on 23rd May 2022 when the claimant had felt confronted by Mr. Hussey. The incident left her feeling shaken and panicked. She had been told to leave the hotel immediately and to complete a self-certification sickness form. Relations between herself and Mr. Hussey had clearly deteriorated as the claimant asked for any further communication to be via e-mail and not in person. She described this as a measure to protect her well-being and safety. She also offered to work from home until her maternity leave began. In her letter, the claimant also raised several other issues regarding payments due to her. These included requests for outstanding tronc payments, holiday pay and pension payments. The claimant confirmed that she would raise a complaint to the pension ombudsman if the matter were not resolved. The letter also included a reference to the claimant's understanding that “our employing company changed and we were all tuped over to HSAP from 1st December 2021”. The claimant had been informed of this transfer for the first time by the HR manager for the business shortly before the claimant wrote the letter.[39]The claimant’s maternity leave commenced on 9th June 2022. She had minimal contact with the respondents while she was away on maternity leave. She attended no “keeping in touch” days and was contacted on only a couple of occasions to ask for social media log in details.[40]The issue regarding the claimant’s pension contributions was not resolved. She raised a complaint to the Pension Ombudsman in July 2022. Her complaint was determined in February 2023. The written determination indicates that the respondent to the complaint did not engage or respond to the Pension Ombudsman’s invitation for comments or submissions. The Pension Ombudsman determined that the claimant was owed £4,012.02 by way of pension contributions together with an additional £1000 for compensation for distress and inconvenience due to maladministration. The £4,012.02 figure includes both employer and employee contributions for the period from May 2020 to December 2021.The respondent to the complaint is named by the Pensions Ombudsman as “Haycock Limited”. No explanation is given as to why this company was the named respondent to the complaint. The outcome letter from the Pension Ombudsman refers to this company as “the Employer.” Again, no explanation is given for this. Nor is there other evidence pointing to this company being the claimant’s employer in the period concerned.[41]The claimant was initially due to return to work from maternity leave on 12th June 2023. The claimant made several attempts to contact Mr. Hussey and others prior to her intended return date. She heard nothing from them about her return to work and used 7 days of accrued time off in lieu and 15 days of annual leave to cover the period from 12th June to 11th July 2023 and ensure she was entitled to be paid for this period.[42]The claimant had still heard nothing about her return to work and so she emailed the respondent on 12th July 2023 to try to find out what was happening. The stress and uncertainty were impacting upon the claimant’s health and she self-certified as sick for a total of 23 days between the 12th July and 11th August 2023.[43]The respondent had not replied to the claimants e-mail dated 12th July 2023. She chased by e-mail on 20th July and again on 1st and 2nd August. She also tried contacting the respondent by telephone. She received no response.[44]By this time, the claimant was not receiving pay slips. Her bank statements showed that until May 2023 her pay was being paid to her from a bank account in the name of Asprey Hotels Ltd. However, this changed in June 2023 when, for the first time, the claimant received a payment from an entity which appeared on the claimant’s bank statement as “Hospitality Manage” The full name does not appear on the bank statement. Presumably due to a character limit.[45]It appears more likely than not that this is a reference to the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited (company number 13879605) – a company which was incorporated in January 2022.[46]On 4th August 2023, the claimant received a letter. The letter was dated 28th July 2023. The letter was on the headed note paper for Hospitality Management Services Limited (the First Respondent). Until she received the letter the claimant was unaware of the existence of this company. The letter confirmed that the claimant had been selected for redundancy. The rationale for this was that the group had acquired a number of bakeries and the marketing teams had been combined resulting in an element of duplication. The letter referred to the current commercial manager being retained in preference to the claimant on the basis that her skills and competence exceeded those of the claimant. It went on to say that it had not been impossible to identify any suitable alternative work for the claimant and that her employment would terminate with effect from 31st July 2023. The letter confirmed that the claimant would be paid for two weeks in lieu of notice, that accrued annual leave had already been added to her maternity pay and that she would be entitled to receive a statutory redundancy payment of £1929.00. The claimant was also informed of her right to appeal against the decision.[47]The claimant received a pay slip dated 31st July 2023 which, for the first time, gave the name of her employer as Hospitality Management Services Limited.[48]It appears more likely than not that there was a transfer of the claimant’s employment from HSAP Ltd to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. This is evident from:(a) The letter of dismissal coming from this company;(b) The letter referring to transfers/acquisition of business by this company;(c) The claimant receiving her July payment from this company.(d) HSAP Limited being dissolved shortly after this on 5 December 2023.[49]The claimant submitted a letter of appeal on 10th August 2023. This was sent by recorded delivery and was received. Having taken legal advice and no doubt due to the confusion as to who her employer was she addressed her letter to Hospitality Management Services Ltd / HSAP Limited / Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. After chasing by e-mail the claimant received no acknowledgement or response to her appeal.[50]ACAS early conciliation took place with Hospitality Management Services Limited, Haycock Limited and HSAP Limited from 5 September 2023 to 17 October 2023. HSAP Limited was dissolved on 5 December 2023.[52]The claim form was presented against the first and second respondents on 8 December 2023.[53]The claimant applied to the tribunal for permission to add Barker’s (Cambridge) Ltd and Asprey Hotels Ltd as further respondents on 13 December 2023.[54]The claimant applied for permission to add WJD Contracts Ltd as a further respondent on 10 Jan 2024.[55]ACAS Early Conciliation took place with:(a) Asprey Hotels Limited from 15 July 2024 to 6 August 2024; and(b) WJD Contracts Limited and from15 July 2024 to 19 Aug 2024; and(c) Barker’s Cambridge Limited from 15 July 2024 to 26 August 2024.[56]The claimant applied for numerous jobs after her dismissal without success. She eventually started employment with Colour Chronicles as Marketing manager from 1 July 2024 but her employment with the business ended after only 3 months during the probation period.[57]Since 1 October 2024, the claimant has been working in an administrative role at a local car garage for 16 hours per week earning minimum wage.[58]The claimant’s dismissal by the respondents caused her significant distress. She experienced stress due to the uncertainty as to how her family would be provided for financially. For example, she experienced sleepless nights panic attacks and eczema. The claimant’s dismissal placed her in a precarious financial position. She was forced to seek financial help from her family which she found humiliating and draining. Instead of enjoying her early motherhood she was consumed with fears about her financial future and consulting solicitors. Before and during her pregnancy the claimant took pride in her work. The dismissive treatment from the respondents undermined her confidence and left her feeling sidelined and diminished. Understandably it has also damaged her ability to trust in others both professionally and personally. Applicable Law and Conclusions[59]The applicable law and the conclusions that I have reached are as follows: The identity of the claimant’s employer[60]The first issue for the tribunal to determine is the question which of the respondents was the claimant's employer at the material time. This dictates which of the respondents is liable for the claims.[61]In closing submissions, the claimant’s solicitor invited me to find that three of the respondents were jointly and severally liable for the claimant’s complaints. These three respondents are Asprey Hotels Limited (Respondent 5), Hospitality Management Services Limited (Respondent 1) and Barker’s Cambridge Limited (Respondent 4). The basis for this submission was essentially that all three companies should be, as the claimant’s solicitor put it, “jointly and severally liable” for the claims because of the opaque way the companies have conducted themselves.[62]There is no basis for finding these three respondents are jointly and severally liable for the claimants’ complaints.[63]The claimant’s complaints lie against her employer at the material time. Consequently, the tribunal must evaluate the evidence and ask itself the question who was the claimant's employer at the material time?[64]As I have already observed, the evidence is far from clear on this issue. That is not the fault of the claimant. It is the result of the opaque way in which the various respondents have run the business and the failure to communicate this to their employees.[65]I have concluded for the reasons that I have already given that:(a) Initially the claimant was employed by Haycock Manor Hotel Limited as evidenced by her contract of employment; and(b) The claimant's employment then transferred by way of a so called “TUPE” transfer from Haycock Manor Hotel limited to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021; and(c) The claimant’s employment transferred again by way of a further socalled “TUPE” transfer from HSAP Limited to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. She was employed by that company at the time she was dismissed.[66]It follows from these findings that, as at the date of dismissal, Hospitality Management Services Limited were the claimant’s employer and is the entity that is potentially liable for the various complaints raised by the claimant in these proceedings.[67]Hospitality Management Services Limited were the subject of a winding up order made in the High Court on 29 January 2025 upon a winding up petition presented by HMRC as creditor of the company. The official receiver has been appointed as Liquidator.[68]The effect of that under section 130 Insolvency Act 1986 is that no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company or its property, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose.[69]That statutory moratorium effectively prevents the tribunal from going further with this case now that I have determined that the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited was the claimant’s employer at the material time, notwithstanding the fact that I have heard evidence on both liability and remedy. The proceedings are therefore stayed.[70]I understand that the claimant will contact the liquidator to seek to have her claims accepted within the liquidation. Approved by: Employment Judge Mr. A Spencer on 9 th June 2025[1]This case came before me for final hearing on 22 and 23 April.[2]There are now five respondents to the claim. The claim form was issued against the first and second respondents. The other respondents were added at the claimant’s application during the course of the case. This appears to have been a precautionary measure due to uncertainty as to the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time.[3]None of the five respondents filed a response to the claim. None took any active role in these proceedings. None participated in the final hearing.[4]The claims and the issues to be determined are set out in case management orders made by Employment Judge Hastie on 4 November 2024.[5]I determined at the outset of this hearing to consider an additional claim that is not listed in Judge Hastie’s case management orders. That is a claim for breach of contract in respect of pension contributions. That claim was made in the claim form. However, it was omitted from the list of claims and issues set out in the case management orders. I allowed that further claim to proceed as there is no prejudice to the respondents in doing so as the claim was clearly brought in the claim form. No amendment is required.[6]I heard evidence in relation to all issues in the case as the hearing was listed as a final hearing. The evidence covered both liability and remedy. However, for reasons which will become apparent, I consider that, at this stage, the tribunal should go no further than determine the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time and should not determine liability and remedy.

Evidence

[7]I heard evidence from the claimant who was the only witness. She gave evidence under affirmation. I had the opportunity to ask her questions.[8]I took into account documents in two bundles (a main bundle and a remedy bundle).[9]No evidence was presented by the respondents. Amendment application[10]The claimant’s solicitor made an application after all the evidence was heard and immediately before closing submissions were heard. The claimant sought permission to add Steve Hussey and Pauleen Hume as the 6th and 7 th respondents. The basis for this was that they were said to be either the employers of the claimant or alternatively they were individuals who undertook discriminatory acts on behalf of corporate respondents and so could be personally liable for the discrimination complaint. The application was refused.[12]Employment tribunals have a broad discretion to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings, That power arises under rule 30 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The discretion must be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in rule 3 of dealing with cases fairly and justly.[13]The core test in considering applications to amend is the balance of injustice and hardship in allowing or refusing the application. A tribunal should consider all relevant circumstances including those identified in the case of Selkent Bus Company -v- Moore.[14]I considered:(a) The nature of the amendment - this was a substantial amendment to add two new parties.(b) The applicability of time limits - the application was made significantly out of time. The events complained of took place in July 2023. The application was made nearly two years later in April 2025. There were no good reasons for the tribunal to allow the claims against the proposed new respondents to be made so late. That would cause considerable prejudice to the proposed new respondents.(c) The timing and manner of the application – the application was made as late as it could be. It was made at the final hearing and after all evidence had been heard. There is no good reason given for this other than the insolvency of one of proposed respondents in January 2025. No explanation was given as to why the application was not made earlier other than the claimant’s solicitor has taken the case over from a colleague and did not spot the insolvency until he was preparing case in recent days. There is no reason why the claim could not have been brought against the two additional respondents from the outset and no good reason for waiting so long to make the application.(d) Granting the application would cause considerable delay and disrupt the case to the detriment of all involved and to the detriment of other tribunal users. If I had granted the application it would effectively require the case to start again with an amended claim form needing to be served on the new respondents and a two-day final hearing being wasted.(e) There is of course a prejudice to the claimant in not being able to pursue claims against the two additional respondents. However, the balance of prejudice clearly leans against granting the application. The application is refused for those reasons.

Facts

[15]Piecing together the facts of this case, particularly with regard to the identity of the claimant’s employer, is made difficult by:(a) the opaque way in which the various respondents operated their business; and(b) the fact that the respondents have taken no active role in these proceedings and have advanced no evidence.(c) The claimant was very much “kept in the dark” by the respondents and so her evidence has been of limited assistance.[16]The claimant began working at the Haycock Manor Hotel in Wansford, Peterborough (“The Hotel”) on 7th April 2020. Initially, her role was Sales Manager. Her recruitment was dealt with by the then owner of the business, Steve Hussey. During her interview, Mr. Hussey asked the claimant whether she was married and whether she was planning to have a baby in the next two years. This question was inappropriate and shows a negative attitude on the part of Mr. Hussey to maternity leave.[17]Initially, the claimant was line managed by the Hotel's general manager, Tom Wortley. Mr. Hussey became the claimant’s line manager in about August 2021 when Mr. Wortley left the business.[18]The claimant was employed under the terms of a written contract of employment. This identified her employer as Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. The contract was not produced until summer 2021. The claimant signed the contract on 20 August 2021.[19]At that time, Haycock Manor Hotel Limited was an active limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies with Company number 12421851 having been incorporated on 23 January 2020.[20]Haycock Manor Hotel Limited had in fact changed its name to Hotel Facilities Management Limited (but retained the same company number 12421851) on 23 November 2020. However, I will continue to refer to Haycock Manor Hotel Limited for convenience. The old name was used in the claimant’s contract of employment notwithstanding the fact that the company had changed its name by this stage.[21]The express terms of the written contract included:(a) A requirement for wages to be paid to the claimant on the last day of each working month by BACS transfer (para 3.1);(b) The claimant’s holiday entitlement was 5.6 weeks per year (including bank holidays). The holiday year ran from 1 January to 31 December each year (paras 9.2 and 9.3);(c) An entitlement to receive pay in lieu of unused holiday entitlement upon termination of employment (para 9.7.2);(d) An entitlement to 3 months’ notice of termination after the claimant’s employment had continued for 6 months or more (para 10.1.2);(e) A general clause (para 12.1) obliging the company to comply with its statutory obligations on enrollment of the claimant to a pension scheme. No other express reference was made to pension entitlement;(f) Once the claimant accrued at least 1 years’ service she would be entitled to one month’s full sick pay and thereafter to SSP only (para 8.1.1).[22]The claimant was promoted to sales and marketing manager in November 2021 after completing her probation period. The role included creating, marketing and delivering events. The claimant worked closely with Steve Hussey.[24]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ending April 2021 shows her employer at that time was Haycock Manor Hotel Limited.[25]Up to that point, the evidence is entirely consistent with the claimant entering into a contract of employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Limited and remaining employed by that company. However, this changed in about late November / early December 2021.[26]On 12 November 2021 the second respondent, HSAP Limited was incorporated under company number 13740440. The registered office address of HSAP Limited was the Hotel.[27]The claimant was not kept informed about the ownership of the Hotel. She was kept in the dark about such matters.[28]It appears more likely than not that HSAP Limited took over the business of the Hotel in about late November / early December 2021. This is more likely than not from following evidence:(a) HSAP limited was incorporated on 12 November 2021 shortly before the transfer. Its registered office address was the Hotel;(b) The claimant was told at later stage (but not at time) by the HR Manager for the business that there had been a so called “TUPE transfer” of the business to HSAP Limited with effect from 1 December 2021;(c) The claimant received a P45 issued in about late November 2021 which confirmed that her employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd ended with effect from 20 November 2021. The claimant did not question this at the time.(d) The claimant received pay slips from January 2022 to December 2022 which confirmed that her pay was from HSAP Ltd. There are no earlier pay slips in the hearing bundles to show precisely when the change took place.(e) The claimant later received her P60 for tax year ended April 2022 which shows that her employer at the time was HSAP Limited.(f) Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd was struck off the register of companies and dissolved on 29 March 2022.[29]It is more likely than not that the claimant’s employment transferred from Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021.[30]On 28 January 2022, the first respondent, Hospitality Management Services Limited was incorporated under company number 13879605.[31]Somewhat strangely, the claimant’s bank statements to May 2023 show that her pay was received from an account in the name of “Asprey Hotels Limited”. Asprey Hotels Limited is the 5th Respondent. The company was incorporated on 23 January 2020. No explanation has been given as to why this company made payments to the claimant. This is inconsistent with the claimant’s pay slips and the P60 referred to. Neither show Asprey Hotels Limited as the claimant’s employer. The fact that Asprey Hotels Limited appeared to be paying the claimant might be indicative of another transfer of the business to Asprey Hotels Limited. However, there is no other evidence to support this and such a transfer is inconsistent with the pay slips and P60. The fact that payments were made by Asprey Hotels Limited is also consistent with a corporate group juggling payments perhaps due to difficulties with cash flow. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the business of the Hotel transferred to Asprey Hotels Limited. The claimant’s employer remained HSAP Limited notwithstanding the fact that she received some payments via Asprey Hotels Ltd.[32]In January 2022, the claimant informed Mr. Hussey that she was pregnant. His reaction was to say “firstly, are you happy about that?.” This reaction made the claimant feel uncomfortable. Again, this comment is indicative of a negative mindset on part of Mr. Hussey regarding pregnancy and maternity.[33]After the claimant informed Mr. Hussey of her pregnancy, she was left out of meetings that she would usually have attended. She was no longer involved in discussions that she would normally have been involved in and contributed to. Again, this is indicative of an employer with a negative attitude towards pregnancy and maternity.[34]The claimant noticed that whilst her pay slips showed pension contributions had been deducted from her income, the funds did not appear to have been deposited into her pension fund. This was the case with both the employee and employer pension contributions. She raised this by e-mail with Kirsty Ross, the respondent’s HR manager, in late January 2022. She received no response. She raised the matter with Mr. Hussey by e-mail in mid-February 2022 and again received no response.[35]Hotel Facilities Management Limited (formerly Haycock Manor Hotel Limited) was dissolved and removed from the register of companies on 29 March 2022.[36]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ended April 2022 shows her employer as HSAP Limited.[37]The claimant’s maternity leave was due to start on 9th June 2022.[38]The claimant raised concerns in writing in late May 2022 regarding various matters. These included an incident on 23rd May 2022 when the claimant had felt confronted by Mr. Hussey. The incident left her feeling shaken and panicked. She had been told to leave the hotel immediately and to complete a self-certification sickness form. Relations between herself and Mr. Hussey had clearly deteriorated as the claimant asked for any further communication to be via e-mail and not in person. She described this as a measure to protect her well-being and safety. She also offered to work from home until her maternity leave began. In her letter, the claimant also raised several other issues regarding payments due to her. These included requests for outstanding tronc payments, holiday pay and pension payments. The claimant confirmed that she would raise a complaint to the pension ombudsman if the matter were not resolved. The letter also included a reference to the claimant's understanding that “our employing company changed and we were all tuped over to HSAP from 1st December 2021”. The claimant had been informed of this transfer for the first time by the HR manager for the business shortly before the claimant wrote the letter.[39]The claimant’s maternity leave commenced on 9th June 2022. She had minimal contact with the respondents while she was away on maternity leave. She attended no “keeping in touch” days and was contacted on only a couple of occasions to ask for social media log in details.[40]The issue regarding the claimant’s pension contributions was not resolved. She raised a complaint to the Pension Ombudsman in July 2022. Her complaint was determined in February 2023. The written determination indicates that the respondent to the complaint did not engage or respond to the Pension Ombudsman’s invitation for comments or submissions. The Pension Ombudsman determined that the claimant was owed £4,012.02 by way of pension contributions together with an additional £1000 for compensation for distress and inconvenience due to maladministration. The £4,012.02 figure includes both employer and employee contributions for the period from May 2020 to December 2021.The respondent to the complaint is named by the Pensions Ombudsman as “Haycock Limited”. No explanation is given as to why this company was the named respondent to the complaint. The outcome letter from the Pension Ombudsman refers to this company as “the Employer.” Again, no explanation is given for this. Nor is there other evidence pointing to this company being the claimant’s employer in the period concerned.[41]The claimant was initially due to return to work from maternity leave on 12th June 2023. The claimant made several attempts to contact Mr. Hussey and others prior to her intended return date. She heard nothing from them about her return to work and used 7 days of accrued time off in lieu and 15 days of annual leave to cover the period from 12th June to 11th July 2023 and ensure she was entitled to be paid for this period.[42]The claimant had still heard nothing about her return to work and so she emailed the respondent on 12th July 2023 to try to find out what was happening. The stress and uncertainty were impacting upon the claimant’s health and she self-certified as sick for a total of 23 days between the 12th July and 11th August 2023.[43]The respondent had not replied to the claimants e-mail dated 12th July 2023. She chased by e-mail on 20th July and again on 1st and 2nd August. She also tried contacting the respondent by telephone. She received no response.[44]By this time, the claimant was not receiving pay slips. Her bank statements showed that until May 2023 her pay was being paid to her from a bank account in the name of Asprey Hotels Ltd. However, this changed in June 2023 when, for the first time, the claimant received a payment from an entity which appeared on the claimant’s bank statement as “Hospitality Manage” The full name does not appear on the bank statement. Presumably due to a character limit.[45]It appears more likely than not that this is a reference to the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited (company number 13879605) – a company which was incorporated in January 2022.[46]On 4th August 2023, the claimant received a letter. The letter was dated 28th July 2023. The letter was on the headed note paper for Hospitality Management Services Limited (the First Respondent). Until she received the letter the claimant was unaware of the existence of this company. The letter confirmed that the claimant had been selected for redundancy. The rationale for this was that the group had acquired a number of bakeries and the marketing teams had been combined resulting in an element of duplication. The letter referred to the current commercial manager being retained in preference to the claimant on the basis that her skills and competence exceeded those of the claimant. It went on to say that it had not been impossible to identify any suitable alternative work for the claimant and that her employment would terminate with effect from 31st July 2023. The letter confirmed that the claimant would be paid for two weeks in lieu of notice, that accrued annual leave had already been added to her maternity pay and that she would be entitled to receive a statutory redundancy payment of £1929.00. The claimant was also informed of her right to appeal against the decision.[47]The claimant received a pay slip dated 31st July 2023 which, for the first time, gave the name of her employer as Hospitality Management Services Limited.[48]It appears more likely than not that there was a transfer of the claimant’s employment from HSAP Ltd to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. This is evident from:(a) The letter of dismissal coming from this company;(b) The letter referring to transfers/acquisition of business by this company;(c) The claimant receiving her July payment from this company.(d) HSAP Limited being dissolved shortly after this on 5 December 2023.[49]The claimant submitted a letter of appeal on 10th August 2023. This was sent by recorded delivery and was received. Having taken legal advice and no doubt due to the confusion as to who her employer was she addressed her letter to Hospitality Management Services Ltd / HSAP Limited / Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. After chasing by e-mail the claimant received no acknowledgement or response to her appeal.[50]ACAS early conciliation took place with Hospitality Management Services Limited, Haycock Limited and HSAP Limited from 5 September 2023 to 17 October 2023. HSAP Limited was dissolved on 5 December 2023.[52]The claim form was presented against the first and second respondents on 8 December 2023.[53]The claimant applied to the tribunal for permission to add Barker’s (Cambridge) Ltd and Asprey Hotels Ltd as further respondents on 13 December 2023.[54]The claimant applied for permission to add WJD Contracts Ltd as a further respondent on 10 Jan 2024.[55]ACAS Early Conciliation took place with:(a) Asprey Hotels Limited from 15 July 2024 to 6 August 2024; and(b) WJD Contracts Limited and from15 July 2024 to 19 Aug 2024; and(c) Barker’s Cambridge Limited from 15 July 2024 to 26 August 2024.[56]The claimant applied for numerous jobs after her dismissal without success. She eventually started employment with Colour Chronicles as Marketing manager from 1 July 2024 but her employment with the business ended after only 3 months during the probation period.[57]Since 1 October 2024, the claimant has been working in an administrative role at a local car garage for 16 hours per week earning minimum wage.[58]The claimant’s dismissal by the respondents caused her significant distress. She experienced stress due to the uncertainty as to how her family would be provided for financially. For example, she experienced sleepless nights panic attacks and eczema. The claimant’s dismissal placed her in a precarious financial position. She was forced to seek financial help from her family which she found humiliating and draining. Instead of enjoying her early motherhood she was consumed with fears about her financial future and consulting solicitors. Before and during her pregnancy the claimant took pride in her work. The dismissive treatment from the respondents undermined her confidence and left her feeling sidelined and diminished. Understandably it has also damaged her ability to trust in others both professionally and personally. Applicable Law and Conclusions[59]The applicable law and the conclusions that I have reached are as follows: The identity of the claimant’s employer[60]The first issue for the tribunal to determine is the question which of the respondents was the claimant's employer at the material time. This dictates which of the respondents is liable for the claims.[61]In closing submissions, the claimant’s solicitor invited me to find that three of the respondents were jointly and severally liable for the claimant’s complaints. These three respondents are Asprey Hotels Limited (Respondent 5), Hospitality Management Services Limited (Respondent 1) and Barker’s Cambridge Limited (Respondent 4). The basis for this submission was essentially that all three companies should be, as the claimant’s solicitor put it, “jointly and severally liable” for the claims because of the opaque way the companies have conducted themselves.[62]There is no basis for finding these three respondents are jointly and severally liable for the claimants’ complaints.[63]The claimant’s complaints lie against her employer at the material time. Consequently, the tribunal must evaluate the evidence and ask itself the question who was the claimant's employer at the material time?[64]As I have already observed, the evidence is far from clear on this issue. That is not the fault of the claimant. It is the result of the opaque way in which the various respondents have run the business and the failure to communicate this to their employees.[65]I have concluded for the reasons that I have already given that:(a) Initially the claimant was employed by Haycock Manor Hotel Limited as evidenced by her contract of employment; and(b) The claimant's employment then transferred by way of a so called “TUPE” transfer from Haycock Manor Hotel limited to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021; and(c) The claimant’s employment transferred again by way of a further socalled “TUPE” transfer from HSAP Limited to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. She was employed by that company at the time she was dismissed.[66]It follows from these findings that, as at the date of dismissal, Hospitality Management Services Limited were the claimant’s employer and is the entity that is potentially liable for the various complaints raised by the claimant in these proceedings.[67]Hospitality Management Services Limited were the subject of a winding up order made in the High Court on 29 January 2025 upon a winding up petition presented by HMRC as creditor of the company. The official receiver has been appointed as Liquidator.[68]The effect of that under section 130 Insolvency Act 1986 is that no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company or its property, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose.[69]That statutory moratorium effectively prevents the tribunal from going further with this case now that I have determined that the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited was the claimant’s employer at the material time, notwithstanding the fact that I have heard evidence on both liability and remedy. The proceedings are therefore stayed.[70]I understand that the claimant will contact the liquidator to seek to have her claims accepted within the liquidation. Approved by: Employment Judge Mr. A Spencer on 9 th June 2025[1]This case came before me for final hearing on 22 and 23 April.[2]There are now five respondents to the claim. The claim form was issued against the first and second respondents. The other respondents were added at the claimant’s application during the course of the case. This appears to have been a precautionary measure due to uncertainty as to the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time.[3]None of the five respondents filed a response to the claim. None took any active role in these proceedings. None participated in the final hearing.[4]The claims and the issues to be determined are set out in case management orders made by Employment Judge Hastie on 4 November 2024.[5]I determined at the outset of this hearing to consider an additional claim that is not listed in Judge Hastie’s case management orders. That is a claim for breach of contract in respect of pension contributions. That claim was made in the claim form. However, it was omitted from the list of claims and issues set out in the case management orders. I allowed that further claim to proceed as there is no prejudice to the respondents in doing so as the claim was clearly brought in the claim form. No amendment is required.[6]I heard evidence in relation to all issues in the case as the hearing was listed as a final hearing. The evidence covered both liability and remedy. However, for reasons which will become apparent, I consider that, at this stage, the tribunal should go no further than determine the identity of the claimant’s employer at the material time and should not determine liability and remedy.

Evidence

[7]I heard evidence from the claimant who was the only witness. She gave evidence under affirmation. I had the opportunity to ask her questions.[8]I took into account documents in two bundles (a main bundle and a remedy bundle).[9]No evidence was presented by the respondents. Amendment application[10]The claimant’s solicitor made an application after all the evidence was heard and immediately before closing submissions were heard. The claimant sought permission to add Steve Hussey and Pauleen Hume as the 6th and 7 th respondents. The basis for this was that they were said to be either the employers of the claimant or alternatively they were individuals who undertook discriminatory acts on behalf of corporate respondents and so could be personally liable for the discrimination complaint. The application was refused.[12]Employment tribunals have a broad discretion to allow amendments at any stage of the proceedings, That power arises under rule 30 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The discretion must be exercised in accordance with the overriding objective in rule 3 of dealing with cases fairly and justly.[13]The core test in considering applications to amend is the balance of injustice and hardship in allowing or refusing the application. A tribunal should consider all relevant circumstances including those identified in the case of Selkent Bus Company -v- Moore.[14]I considered:(a) The nature of the amendment - this was a substantial amendment to add two new parties.(b) The applicability of time limits - the application was made significantly out of time. The events complained of took place in July 2023. The application was made nearly two years later in April 2025. There were no good reasons for the tribunal to allow the claims against the proposed new respondents to be made so late. That would cause considerable prejudice to the proposed new respondents.(c) The timing and manner of the application – the application was made as late as it could be. It was made at the final hearing and after all evidence had been heard. There is no good reason given for this other than the insolvency of one of proposed respondents in January 2025. No explanation was given as to why the application was not made earlier other than the claimant’s solicitor has taken the case over from a colleague and did not spot the insolvency until he was preparing case in recent days. There is no reason why the claim could not have been brought against the two additional respondents from the outset and no good reason for waiting so long to make the application.(d) Granting the application would cause considerable delay and disrupt the case to the detriment of all involved and to the detriment of other tribunal users. If I had granted the application it would effectively require the case to start again with an amended claim form needing to be served on the new respondents and a two-day final hearing being wasted.(e) There is of course a prejudice to the claimant in not being able to pursue claims against the two additional respondents. However, the balance of prejudice clearly leans against granting the application. The application is refused for those reasons.

Facts

[15]Piecing together the facts of this case, particularly with regard to the identity of the claimant’s employer, is made difficult by:(a) the opaque way in which the various respondents operated their business; and(b) the fact that the respondents have taken no active role in these proceedings and have advanced no evidence.(c) The claimant was very much “kept in the dark” by the respondents and so her evidence has been of limited assistance.[16]The claimant began working at the Haycock Manor Hotel in Wansford, Peterborough (“The Hotel”) on 7th April 2020. Initially, her role was Sales Manager. Her recruitment was dealt with by the then owner of the business, Steve Hussey. During her interview, Mr. Hussey asked the claimant whether she was married and whether she was planning to have a baby in the next two years. This question was inappropriate and shows a negative attitude on the part of Mr. Hussey to maternity leave.[17]Initially, the claimant was line managed by the Hotel's general manager, Tom Wortley. Mr. Hussey became the claimant’s line manager in about August 2021 when Mr. Wortley left the business.[18]The claimant was employed under the terms of a written contract of employment. This identified her employer as Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. The contract was not produced until summer 2021. The claimant signed the contract on 20 August 2021.[19]At that time, Haycock Manor Hotel Limited was an active limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies with Company number 12421851 having been incorporated on 23 January 2020.[20]Haycock Manor Hotel Limited had in fact changed its name to Hotel Facilities Management Limited (but retained the same company number 12421851) on 23 November 2020. However, I will continue to refer to Haycock Manor Hotel Limited for convenience. The old name was used in the claimant’s contract of employment notwithstanding the fact that the company had changed its name by this stage.[21]The express terms of the written contract included:(a) A requirement for wages to be paid to the claimant on the last day of each working month by BACS transfer (para 3.1);(b) The claimant’s holiday entitlement was 5.6 weeks per year (including bank holidays). The holiday year ran from 1 January to 31 December each year (paras 9.2 and 9.3);(c) An entitlement to receive pay in lieu of unused holiday entitlement upon termination of employment (para 9.7.2);(d) An entitlement to 3 months’ notice of termination after the claimant’s employment had continued for 6 months or more (para 10.1.2);(e) A general clause (para 12.1) obliging the company to comply with its statutory obligations on enrollment of the claimant to a pension scheme. No other express reference was made to pension entitlement;(f) Once the claimant accrued at least 1 years’ service she would be entitled to one month’s full sick pay and thereafter to SSP only (para 8.1.1).[22]The claimant was promoted to sales and marketing manager in November 2021 after completing her probation period. The role included creating, marketing and delivering events. The claimant worked closely with Steve Hussey.[24]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ending April 2021 shows her employer at that time was Haycock Manor Hotel Limited.[25]Up to that point, the evidence is entirely consistent with the claimant entering into a contract of employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Limited and remaining employed by that company. However, this changed in about late November / early December 2021.[26]On 12 November 2021 the second respondent, HSAP Limited was incorporated under company number 13740440. The registered office address of HSAP Limited was the Hotel.[27]The claimant was not kept informed about the ownership of the Hotel. She was kept in the dark about such matters.[28]It appears more likely than not that HSAP Limited took over the business of the Hotel in about late November / early December 2021. This is more likely than not from following evidence:(a) HSAP limited was incorporated on 12 November 2021 shortly before the transfer. Its registered office address was the Hotel;(b) The claimant was told at later stage (but not at time) by the HR Manager for the business that there had been a so called “TUPE transfer” of the business to HSAP Limited with effect from 1 December 2021;(c) The claimant received a P45 issued in about late November 2021 which confirmed that her employment with Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd ended with effect from 20 November 2021. The claimant did not question this at the time.(d) The claimant received pay slips from January 2022 to December 2022 which confirmed that her pay was from HSAP Ltd. There are no earlier pay slips in the hearing bundles to show precisely when the change took place.(e) The claimant later received her P60 for tax year ended April 2022 which shows that her employer at the time was HSAP Limited.(f) Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd was struck off the register of companies and dissolved on 29 March 2022.[29]It is more likely than not that the claimant’s employment transferred from Haycock Manor Hotel Ltd to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021.[30]On 28 January 2022, the first respondent, Hospitality Management Services Limited was incorporated under company number 13879605.[31]Somewhat strangely, the claimant’s bank statements to May 2023 show that her pay was received from an account in the name of “Asprey Hotels Limited”. Asprey Hotels Limited is the 5th Respondent. The company was incorporated on 23 January 2020. No explanation has been given as to why this company made payments to the claimant. This is inconsistent with the claimant’s pay slips and the P60 referred to. Neither show Asprey Hotels Limited as the claimant’s employer. The fact that Asprey Hotels Limited appeared to be paying the claimant might be indicative of another transfer of the business to Asprey Hotels Limited. However, there is no other evidence to support this and such a transfer is inconsistent with the pay slips and P60. The fact that payments were made by Asprey Hotels Limited is also consistent with a corporate group juggling payments perhaps due to difficulties with cash flow. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding that the business of the Hotel transferred to Asprey Hotels Limited. The claimant’s employer remained HSAP Limited notwithstanding the fact that she received some payments via Asprey Hotels Ltd.[32]In January 2022, the claimant informed Mr. Hussey that she was pregnant. His reaction was to say “firstly, are you happy about that?.” This reaction made the claimant feel uncomfortable. Again, this comment is indicative of a negative mindset on part of Mr. Hussey regarding pregnancy and maternity.[33]After the claimant informed Mr. Hussey of her pregnancy, she was left out of meetings that she would usually have attended. She was no longer involved in discussions that she would normally have been involved in and contributed to. Again, this is indicative of an employer with a negative attitude towards pregnancy and maternity.[34]The claimant noticed that whilst her pay slips showed pension contributions had been deducted from her income, the funds did not appear to have been deposited into her pension fund. This was the case with both the employee and employer pension contributions. She raised this by e-mail with Kirsty Ross, the respondent’s HR manager, in late January 2022. She received no response. She raised the matter with Mr. Hussey by e-mail in mid-February 2022 and again received no response.[35]Hotel Facilities Management Limited (formerly Haycock Manor Hotel Limited) was dissolved and removed from the register of companies on 29 March 2022.[36]The claimant’s P60 for the tax year ended April 2022 shows her employer as HSAP Limited.[37]The claimant’s maternity leave was due to start on 9th June 2022.[38]The claimant raised concerns in writing in late May 2022 regarding various matters. These included an incident on 23rd May 2022 when the claimant had felt confronted by Mr. Hussey. The incident left her feeling shaken and panicked. She had been told to leave the hotel immediately and to complete a self-certification sickness form. Relations between herself and Mr. Hussey had clearly deteriorated as the claimant asked for any further communication to be via e-mail and not in person. She described this as a measure to protect her well-being and safety. She also offered to work from home until her maternity leave began. In her letter, the claimant also raised several other issues regarding payments due to her. These included requests for outstanding tronc payments, holiday pay and pension payments. The claimant confirmed that she would raise a complaint to the pension ombudsman if the matter were not resolved. The letter also included a reference to the claimant's understanding that “our employing company changed and we were all tuped over to HSAP from 1st December 2021”. The claimant had been informed of this transfer for the first time by the HR manager for the business shortly before the claimant wrote the letter.[39]The claimant’s maternity leave commenced on 9th June 2022. She had minimal contact with the respondents while she was away on maternity leave. She attended no “keeping in touch” days and was contacted on only a couple of occasions to ask for social media log in details.[40]The issue regarding the claimant’s pension contributions was not resolved. She raised a complaint to the Pension Ombudsman in July 2022. Her complaint was determined in February 2023. The written determination indicates that the respondent to the complaint did not engage or respond to the Pension Ombudsman’s invitation for comments or submissions. The Pension Ombudsman determined that the claimant was owed £4,012.02 by way of pension contributions together with an additional £1000 for compensation for distress and inconvenience due to maladministration. The £4,012.02 figure includes both employer and employee contributions for the period from May 2020 to December 2021.The respondent to the complaint is named by the Pensions Ombudsman as “Haycock Limited”. No explanation is given as to why this company was the named respondent to the complaint. The outcome letter from the Pension Ombudsman refers to this company as “the Employer.” Again, no explanation is given for this. Nor is there other evidence pointing to this company being the claimant’s employer in the period concerned.[41]The claimant was initially due to return to work from maternity leave on 12th June 2023. The claimant made several attempts to contact Mr. Hussey and others prior to her intended return date. She heard nothing from them about her return to work and used 7 days of accrued time off in lieu and 15 days of annual leave to cover the period from 12th June to 11th July 2023 and ensure she was entitled to be paid for this period.[42]The claimant had still heard nothing about her return to work and so she emailed the respondent on 12th July 2023 to try to find out what was happening. The stress and uncertainty were impacting upon the claimant’s health and she self-certified as sick for a total of 23 days between the 12th July and 11th August 2023.[43]The respondent had not replied to the claimants e-mail dated 12th July 2023. She chased by e-mail on 20th July and again on 1st and 2nd August. She also tried contacting the respondent by telephone. She received no response.[44]By this time, the claimant was not receiving pay slips. Her bank statements showed that until May 2023 her pay was being paid to her from a bank account in the name of Asprey Hotels Ltd. However, this changed in June 2023 when, for the first time, the claimant received a payment from an entity which appeared on the claimant’s bank statement as “Hospitality Manage” The full name does not appear on the bank statement. Presumably due to a character limit.[45]It appears more likely than not that this is a reference to the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited (company number 13879605) – a company which was incorporated in January 2022.[46]On 4th August 2023, the claimant received a letter. The letter was dated 28th July 2023. The letter was on the headed note paper for Hospitality Management Services Limited (the First Respondent). Until she received the letter the claimant was unaware of the existence of this company. The letter confirmed that the claimant had been selected for redundancy. The rationale for this was that the group had acquired a number of bakeries and the marketing teams had been combined resulting in an element of duplication. The letter referred to the current commercial manager being retained in preference to the claimant on the basis that her skills and competence exceeded those of the claimant. It went on to say that it had not been impossible to identify any suitable alternative work for the claimant and that her employment would terminate with effect from 31st July 2023. The letter confirmed that the claimant would be paid for two weeks in lieu of notice, that accrued annual leave had already been added to her maternity pay and that she would be entitled to receive a statutory redundancy payment of £1929.00. The claimant was also informed of her right to appeal against the decision.[47]The claimant received a pay slip dated 31st July 2023 which, for the first time, gave the name of her employer as Hospitality Management Services Limited.[48]It appears more likely than not that there was a transfer of the claimant’s employment from HSAP Ltd to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. This is evident from:(a) The letter of dismissal coming from this company;(b) The letter referring to transfers/acquisition of business by this company;(c) The claimant receiving her July payment from this company.(d) HSAP Limited being dissolved shortly after this on 5 December 2023.[49]The claimant submitted a letter of appeal on 10th August 2023. This was sent by recorded delivery and was received. Having taken legal advice and no doubt due to the confusion as to who her employer was she addressed her letter to Hospitality Management Services Ltd / HSAP Limited / Haycock Manor Hotel Limited. After chasing by e-mail the claimant received no acknowledgement or response to her appeal.[50]ACAS early conciliation took place with Hospitality Management Services Limited, Haycock Limited and HSAP Limited from 5 September 2023 to 17 October 2023. HSAP Limited was dissolved on 5 December 2023.[52]The claim form was presented against the first and second respondents on 8 December 2023.[53]The claimant applied to the tribunal for permission to add Barker’s (Cambridge) Ltd and Asprey Hotels Ltd as further respondents on 13 December 2023.[54]The claimant applied for permission to add WJD Contracts Ltd as a further respondent on 10 Jan 2024.[55]ACAS Early Conciliation took place with:(a) Asprey Hotels Limited from 15 July 2024 to 6 August 2024; and(b) WJD Contracts Limited and from15 July 2024 to 19 Aug 2024; and(c) Barker’s Cambridge Limited from 15 July 2024 to 26 August 2024.[56]The claimant applied for numerous jobs after her dismissal without success. She eventually started employment with Colour Chronicles as Marketing manager from 1 July 2024 but her employment with the business ended after only 3 months during the probation period.[57]Since 1 October 2024, the claimant has been working in an administrative role at a local car garage for 16 hours per week earning minimum wage.[58]The claimant’s dismissal by the respondents caused her significant distress. She experienced stress due to the uncertainty as to how her family would be provided for financially. For example, she experienced sleepless nights panic attacks and eczema. The claimant’s dismissal placed her in a precarious financial position. She was forced to seek financial help from her family which she found humiliating and draining. Instead of enjoying her early motherhood she was consumed with fears about her financial future and consulting solicitors. Before and during her pregnancy the claimant took pride in her work. The dismissive treatment from the respondents undermined her confidence and left her feeling sidelined and diminished. Understandably it has also damaged her ability to trust in others both professionally and personally. Applicable Law and Conclusions[59]The applicable law and the conclusions that I have reached are as follows: The identity of the claimant’s employer[60]The first issue for the tribunal to determine is the question which of the respondents was the claimant's employer at the material time. This dictates which of the respondents is liable for the claims.[61]In closing submissions, the claimant’s solicitor invited me to find that three of the respondents were jointly and severally liable for the claimant’s complaints. These three respondents are Asprey Hotels Limited (Respondent 5), Hospitality Management Services Limited (Respondent 1) and Barker’s Cambridge Limited (Respondent 4). The basis for this submission was essentially that all three companies should be, as the claimant’s solicitor put it, “jointly and severally liable” for the claims because of the opaque way the companies have conducted themselves.[62]There is no basis for finding these three respondents are jointly and severally liable for the claimants’ complaints.[63]The claimant’s complaints lie against her employer at the material time. Consequently, the tribunal must evaluate the evidence and ask itself the question who was the claimant's employer at the material time?[64]As I have already observed, the evidence is far from clear on this issue. That is not the fault of the claimant. It is the result of the opaque way in which the various respondents have run the business and the failure to communicate this to their employees.[65]I have concluded for the reasons that I have already given that:(a) Initially the claimant was employed by Haycock Manor Hotel Limited as evidenced by her contract of employment; and(b) The claimant's employment then transferred by way of a so called “TUPE” transfer from Haycock Manor Hotel limited to HSAP Limited on or about 1 December 2021; and(c) The claimant’s employment transferred again by way of a further socalled “TUPE” transfer from HSAP Limited to Hospitality Management Services Limited in about June 2023. She was employed by that company at the time she was dismissed.[66]It follows from these findings that, as at the date of dismissal, Hospitality Management Services Limited were the claimant’s employer and is the entity that is potentially liable for the various complaints raised by the claimant in these proceedings.[67]Hospitality Management Services Limited were the subject of a winding up order made in the High Court on 29 January 2025 upon a winding up petition presented by HMRC as creditor of the company. The official receiver has been appointed as Liquidator.[68]The effect of that under section 130 Insolvency Act 1986 is that no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company or its property, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose.[69]That statutory moratorium effectively prevents the tribunal from going further with this case now that I have determined that the first respondent Hospitality Management Services Limited was the claimant’s employer at the material time, notwithstanding the fact that I have heard evidence on both liability and remedy. The proceedings are therefore stayed.[70]I understand that the claimant will contact the liquidator to seek to have her claims accepted within the liquidation. Approved by: