Dental nurses dismissed before a TUPE transfer win automatic unfair dismissal claim
Two dental nurses were automatically unfairly dismissed when their employer claimed redundancy but the real reason was a planned transfer of the dental business to a new provider. The tribunal awarded £7,090 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimants were dental nurses employed by the first respondent from 2017 until dismissal on 11 December 2020.
- The first respondent claimed redundancy due to a downturn in the dental business, but the tribunal found the real reason was a planned transfer to the third/fourth respondents.
- The third respondent told Dr Kelly he wanted to 'start afresh with nurses' before the claimants were dismissed.
- The tribunal found a TUPE transfer occurred from the first respondent to the third/fourth respondents in April 2021.
- The claimants' dismissals were automatically unfair because the principal reason was the transfer.
- The race discrimination claims were dismissed as there were no facts from which discrimination could be inferred.
Timeline
-
First claimant started employment
Mrs Seraphin began work as a dental nurse for the first respondent.
-
Second claimant started employment
Miss Dawes began work as a dental nurse for the first respondent.
-
First claimant's appraisal
First claimant agreed to a £500 annual bonus in lieu of a 50p per hour pay rise.
-
First redundancy consultation meeting
Claimants told their roles were at risk of redundancy due to a downturn in the dental business.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimants informed the first respondent was considering closing the dental service.
-
Final redundancy meeting and dismissal
Claimants given three weeks' notice of termination. Later that day, Dr Kelly told the second claimant that the third respondent said he was taking over and wanted to 'start afresh with nurses'.
-
Employment terminated
Claimants' employment ended by reason of redundancy.
-
Second claimant contacted by fourth respondent's manager
Ms Carey called the second claimant about possible re-employment, but no job materialised.
-
Third respondent offered second claimant a role
Second claimant declined the offer.
-
Fourth respondent started dental services at Fleet Street
The fourth respondent began offering dental services from the same premises, using agency nurses and later employed nurses.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found automatic unfair dismissal due to TUPE transfer and upheld first claimant's breach of contract claim.
-
Remedy judgment
By consent, respondents to pay £5,752 to first claimant and £1,338 to second claimant.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a TUPE transfer had occurred, whether the dismissals were automatically unfair because of the transfer, and whether the claimants had been discriminated against because of race.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dental nurses were automatically unfairly dismissed. The real reason for their dismissal was a planned transfer of the dental business to a new provider, not redundancy as claimed. The race discrimination claims were dismissed as there were no facts from which discrimination could be inferred.
Compensation:
- First claimant: £5,752
- Second claimant: £1,338
- Total: £7,090
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed shortly before a business transfer, the reason may be the transfer itself, making the dismissal automatically unfair.
- Employers must carry out genuine redundancy consultations and cannot use redundancy as a pretext for a TUPE-related dismissal.
- Job-sharing arrangements are protected; dismissing both employees without considering alternatives can be unfair.
- Even if you represent yourself, a tribunal can find in your favour if the evidence supports your case.
What this case shows
Two dental nurses who worked as job-shares were dismissed by their employer, which claimed the reason was redundancy due to a downturn in business. However, the tribunal found that the real reason was a planned transfer of the dental practice to a new provider. The new provider had told a colleague that he wanted to 'start afresh with nurses', and the dismissals happened just months before the transfer took place.
This case highlights how important it is for employers to be honest about the real reason for dismissal. If a TUPE transfer is in the pipeline, dismissing employees to avoid taking them on can lead to a finding of automatic unfair dismissal. The tribunal also noted that the employer did not properly consult with the nurses or consider alternatives to redundancy.
What could have been done differently
The employer could have avoided this outcome by being transparent about the planned transfer and engaging in proper consultation with the nurses. If the transfer was genuinely the reason for the dismissal, the employer should have considered whether the nurses could have been transferred to the new provider. Instead, the lack of consultation and the misleading redundancy reason led to the automatic unfair dismissal finding.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that TUPE protections are strong. Employees who are dismissed because of a transfer can claim automatic unfair dismissal, regardless of their length of service. It also shows that tribunals will look behind the stated reason for dismissal to see if the real reason was the transfer. For employees in similar situations, it is worth seeking advice early, especially if a business sale or transfer is rumoured.
Similar cases
Care worker wins unfair dismissal claim but gets nothing after conduct findings
A former care worker succeeded in her unfair dismissal claim against Mihomecare Limited, but the tribunal reduced her compensation to zero because of her own conduct and the likelihood she would have been dismissed anyway.
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.
Former employee unfairly dismissed but gets only basic award after 70% contributory conduct deduction
A Watford tribunal found Mitie Ltd unfairly dismissed a former employee but reduced his basic award by 70% for his own conduct and made no compensatory award due to a 100% Polkey reduction. He received £1,298.10.
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.