Case 1401418/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Ms H. Coutts (Solicitor) PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401418/2022
- Decision date
- 10 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In Person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 13 December 2022, the tribunal, by consent, declared that there had been a transfer of an undertaking by way of a service provision change on 8 February 2022 between the first and second respondents. It also declared that the claimant was assigned to the Exeter City Council Kitchens and Bathrooms contract, that he was a Project Manager working on that contract, that he should have transferred with the 46 employees who did transfer, and that his name was not on the pre-transfer information list of transferring employees.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant had suffered from bladder cancer and had absences from work in 2021 because of that condition. It recorded that he was apparently dismissed by a letter dated 10 February 2022 from the first respondent’s administrators, received on 14 February 2022 and backdated to 8 February 2022, and that on 2 March 2022 Mr Eaton of the second respondent telephoned him to offer a role, which the claimant declined to explore.
This judgment did not decide the remaining substantive claims. It states that the issues remaining in the case and the case management orders were set out in a separate Record of the Preliminary Hearing of the same date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This preliminary hearing judgment made consent declarations about TUPE transfer and related facts, but it did not adjudicate a substantive claim outcome. | Other | — | — |
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.