Case 1304746/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T McMaster v Oncall Group Resources Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1304746/2023
- Decision date
- 5 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McGough
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T McMaster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Birmingham on 4 and 5 August 2025, Employment Judge McGough, sitting alone, determined the TUPE issue first. The tribunal found that there was no transfer of an undertaking or business, or part of one, to Oncall Group Resources Limited within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint could not be determined and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Preliminary issue: the tribunal found there was no transfer of an undertaking or business, or part of one, to the respondent under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to determine the complaint after finding there had been no TUPE transfer. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.