MOT tester dismissed to clear way for business sale: automatically unfair under TUPE
An MOT tester with eight years' service was dismissed to facilitate a business transfer, making the dismissal automatically unfair. The tribunal awarded £6,837 in compensation, reduced by 10% for contributory conduct.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Mr Hill was employed as an MOT tester from January 2012 until 26 October 2020.
- The respondent sought to sell the car MOT business to Mr Quinn, who was unwilling to employ Mr Hill on the terms Mr Hill claimed.
- The principal reason for dismissal was to remove the obstacle of Mr Hill's employment to facilitate the business transfer.
- Mr Hill had osteoarthritis in his knees and shoulder problems, constituting a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
- The decision not to assign motorcycle MOT testing to Mr Hill was commercial, not due to his disability.
- Mr Hill had 3 days of untaken holiday at termination and was awarded £285.71 gross.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Mr Hill began employment as an MOT tester for Class IV vehicles.
-
Salary increase
Mr Hill's salary increased to £25,000 per annum.
-
Business sale discussions begin
Mr Turner began considering selling the car MOT business.
-
Furlough
Mr Hill was placed on furlough due to COVID-19, receiving 100% salary.
-
Meeting at premises
Mr Hill attended to clear possessions; Mr Quinn arrived unexpectedly.
-
Telephone call with Mr Quinn
Mr Hill raised alleged contractual benefits including free MOTs and cash payments.
-
Second call with Mr Quinn
Mr Quinn stated only written contract terms applied; Mr Hill said he couldn't afford to work without extra benefits.
-
Redundancy notification
Mr Turner emailed Mr Hill stating he was considering redundancy due to failed sale.
-
Notice of redundancy
Mr Hill was issued notice of redundancy.
-
Dismissal
Mr Hill's employment terminated; he received a redundancy payment of £5,769.24.
-
New employment
Mr Hill secured a new full-time role.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was for redundancy (a potentially fair reason) or to facilitate a business transfer (automatically unfair under TUPE), and whether the claimant was disabled and subjected to disability discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal decided that the dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason was to facilitate the transfer of the business to Mr Quinn, who was unwilling to employ the claimant on his existing terms. The claim for disability discrimination was dismissed as the decision not to assign motorcycle testing was commercial, not due to disability.
Compensation awarded:
- Basic award: £207.68
- Compensatory award: £5,850.00 (gross)
- Loss of statutory rights: £270.00
- Lost employer pension contributions: £229.77
- Holiday pay: £285.71
- Total: £6,837.16 (after 10% reduction for contributory conduct)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed shortly before a business transfer, the reason for dismissal may be scrutinised closely – if the aim is to avoid TUPE obligations, it will be automatically unfair.
- Contributory conduct (e.g., raising disputed contractual demands) can reduce compensation even if the dismissal is automatically unfair.
- Disability discrimination claims require evidence that the employer's actions were because of the disability, not for commercial reasons.
When a business sale becomes a dismissal trap
This case shows how a planned business transfer can lead to an automatically unfair dismissal if the employer's motive is to avoid taking on an employee under TUPE. The claimant, an MOT tester with eight years' service, was dismissed on purported redundancy grounds just as his employer was negotiating the sale of the car MOT business. The tribunal found that the real reason was to clear the way for the buyer, who was unwilling to employ the claimant on his existing terms.
The employer could have avoided this outcome by being transparent about the transfer and either ensuring the buyer accepted TUPE liabilities or consulting properly about redundancy. Instead, the dismissal was deemed automatically unfair, and the claimant received compensation including lost pay and pension contributions.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employees who are dismissed around the time of a business transfer should check whether the real reason was to avoid TUPE protection. Even if the employer calls it redundancy, the tribunal will look at the substance. Here, the claimant also brought a disability discrimination claim, but it failed because the employer's decision not to give him motorcycle testing work was commercial, not linked to his osteoarthritis.
The 10% reduction for contributory conduct (the claimant's insistence on disputed benefits) shows that employee behaviour can still affect compensation, even in automatically unfair cases.
Similar cases
CFO dismissed after company liquidation: notice and holiday pay awarded
A chief financial officer was dismissed by reason of redundancy when her employer entered liquidation. The tribunal awarded £9,015.92 for unpaid notice and holiday pay but dismissed claims for discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Theatre manager with 18 years' service dismissed on capability grounds: disability and unfair dismissal claims fail
A theatre manager who was dismissed after two long periods of sickness absence lost her claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, but won a small holiday pay award.
Hotel manager's unfair dismissal claim dismissed as out of time despite ADHD
A tribunal dismissed a hotel manager's claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and unpaid wages because they were presented over a month late. The judge found that his ADHD did not prevent him from bringing the claim on time.
Unfair dismissal after redundancy: employer in liquidation fails to defend claim
A former employee of Arnold Sanderson Limited has been awarded nearly £30,000 after the company dismissed him by reason of redundancy and failed to respond to his tribunal claim.