Case 1303338/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Baker Miss C Reynolds Mr A Tomlinson Mr E Soladoye Mr D Loone Mr S Farren v Corporate Facilities Services Limited and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1303338/2023
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden Representation
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr D Baker Miss C Reynolds Mr A Tomlinson Mr E Soladoye Mr D Loone Mr S Farren
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe written record states that the claimants other than Mr Farren and Miss Reynolds, and the third respondent, did not attend and were not represented. The tribunal considered the information available to it and proceeded in their absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024.
On the substantive issue, the tribunal held that the condition set out in Regulation 3(3)(a)(ii) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 was not satisfied in relation to the security services contract awarded to the second respondent on 1 February 2023. The record does not set out separate reasons in writing; it records that oral judgment was given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note appended to the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found that the condition in Regulation 3(3)(a)(ii) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 was not satisfied in relation to the security services contract awarded to the second respondent on 1 February 2023. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Regulation 3(3)(a)(ii) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
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.