Security guard dismissed before TUPE transfer: automatic unfair dismissal
A security guard with five years' service was dismissed just before his role was outsourced. The tribunal found a TUPE transfer occurred and his dismissal was automatically unfair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a security guard for the first respondent from 2008 until 30 April 2013.
- On 1 March 2013 the claimant was told he was being dismissed, and received a termination letter dated 13 March 2013.
- The claimant's last day of work was 30 April 2013; on 1 May 2013 contractors from the second respondent took over security services.
- The second respondent failed to engage with the proceedings since 2016 and did not comply with tribunal orders.
- The first respondent's response was struck out in 2023 for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
The claimant began working for the first respondent as a security guard.
-
Contract signed
The claimant signed a contract of employment with the first respondent; it was not a fixed-term contract.
-
Claimant informed of dismissal
The claimant was told he was being dismissed.
-
Termination letter received
The claimant received a letter from the first respondent stating his contract would be terminated as of 1 May 2013.
-
Last day of work
The claimant's last day at work for the first respondent.
-
TUPE transfer date
The second respondent's contractors started providing security services at the cultural office.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Wade held a preliminary hearing to determine whether a TUPE transfer occurred.
-
Judgment on TUPE transfer
Employment Judge Wade issued a judgment finding a relevant transfer and allowing the unfair dismissal claim to proceed.
-
Strike out of second respondent's response
Employment Judge Brown struck out the second respondent's response due to non-compliance and failure to engage.
-
Strike out of claim against first respondent
Employment Judge Brown struck out the claim against the first respondent for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether there was a relevant transfer of a service provision under TUPE regulations, and if so, whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair because of the transfer.
The outcome
The tribunal found that a TUPE transfer took place on 1 May 2013 when security services were outsourced to a new contractor. The claimant was dismissed just before the transfer, and the tribunal concluded the dismissal was automatically unfair under regulation 7 of TUPE.
- The second respondent's response was struck out for non-compliance, so the claim succeeded against them.
- The first respondent's response was also struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success.
- No compensation has been determined yet; a remedy hearing is pending.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed shortly before your role is transferred to a new employer, you may have a claim for automatic unfair dismissal under TUPE.
- Employers must have an economic, technical or organisational reason to justify a dismissal connected to a TUPE transfer.
- Failure to engage with tribunal proceedings can lead to your response being struck out and judgment entered against you.
- A service provision change under TUPE can apply when the same activities are carried out by a new contractor, even if the employer claims it is a new service.
What this case shows
This case illustrates how TUPE regulations protect employees when their work is outsourced. The claimant, a security guard with five years' service, was told he was being dismissed just two months before the security contract was taken over by a new company. His dismissal letter arrived in March 2013, with his last day on 30 April. The next day, the new contractor's staff began performing the same duties.
The tribunal found that this was a classic service provision change under TUPE. The same security services continued at the same location, meaning the claimant should have transferred to the new employer automatically. Instead, he was dismissed, and the employer offered no economic, technical or organisational reason for the decision.
What could have been done differently
The first respondent, the Embassy of the Kingdom of Bahrain, could have consulted with the claimant about the transfer and considered whether he could transfer to the new contractor. If a dismissal was genuinely necessary, they would have needed to show a valid reason unrelated to the transfer. The second respondent, the incoming contractor, failed to engage with the proceedings at all, leading to their response being struck out.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that TUPE rights cannot be bypassed by dismissing employees just before a transfer. The tribunal's decision allows the claimant to proceed to a remedy hearing, where compensation for automatic unfair dismissal will be assessed. For employees in similar situations, the key takeaway is that a dismissal timed to avoid TUPE obligations is likely to be automatically unfair.
Similar cases
Founder's unfair dismissal claim struck out: no continuous employment before TUPE transfer
A former CEO who founded the business could not show he was an employee of the transferor company, so his unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of continuous service.
Asbestos removal workers' TUPE claims struck out: no transfer found
A group of former asbestos removal workers had their claims against three companies struck out after the tribunal found there was no TUPE transfer of their employment.
Struck out for not pursuing claim: a lesson in tribunal deadlines
A former employee who brought claims for unfair dismissal and pregnancy discrimination had her case struck out after failing to comply with orders and not attending the hearing.
Field engineers dismissed after employer wrongly claimed TUPE transfer: £114,504 awarded
Four field engineers were unfairly dismissed when their employer told them they had transferred to a new contractor under TUPE, but no transfer had occurred. The tribunal awarded over £114,000 in total.