Case 1303545/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Wright v Veolia ES (UK) Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303545/2022
- Decision date
- 28 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Wright
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered whether the claims against Amey PLC, the Second Respondent, should be struck out on the basis that it was not the Claimant's employer at the material time. The Claimant had brought complaints of arrears of pay/unlawful deductions and breach of contract relating to sick pay entitlement following a TUPE transfer from Amey PLC to Veolia ES (UK) Limited. The claims against Veolia had been settled and withdrawn, but the Claimant sought to continue against Amey.
The Tribunal found that the parties agreed the Claimant's employment transferred from the Second Respondent to the First Respondent on 4 April 2022 by operation of TUPE. Any liability for unlawful deductions or breach of contract by the Second Respondent transferred to the First Respondent, and the Claimant was entitled to pursue those matters against the First Respondent, which he had done.
The Tribunal also considered the Claimant's argument about failure to inform and consult on the TUPE transfer, but found that even reading the claim form fairly and non-technically, it did not include such a claim. The Tribunal concluded that the claims against the Second Respondent had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deductions/arrears of pay claim against the Second Respondent was struck out because any liability had transferred to the First Respondent under TUPE and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success against the Second Respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim against the Second Respondent was struck out because any contractual liability had transferred to the First Respondent under TUPE and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success against the Second Respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- TUPE regulation 4
- Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules
- no reasonable prospect of success
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias
- Cox v Adecco
- Regulation 15 of TULCRA
- TUPE Regulation 12
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.