Case 1302823/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Randstad Solutions Ltd and Mach Recruitment Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302823/2021
- Decision date
- 13 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Le Grys
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary issue heard at Bristol by VHS on 4 and 5 January 2023 before Employment Judge Le Grys. The Claimant, Mr Paul Parfitt, represented himself. Randstad Solutions Limited and Mach Recruitment Limited were represented by counsel.
The only recorded determination is that the Second Respondent's application to be dismissed from the proceedings did not succeed. The application was based on an argument that the Claimant's employment had not transferred to Mach Recruitment Limited in accordance with the TUPE Regulations. The tribunal therefore rejected that basis for dismissal.
The written record states that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. The text supplied does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning beyond the outcome of the preliminary TUPE issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The Second Respondent's application to be dismissed from proceedings on the basis that the Claimant's employment did not transfer to it under the TUPE Regulations did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.