Case 1401937/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Mark Patterson (1) Mr Michael Sandford (2) Mr David Ball (3) Mr Stephen Kempton (4) v Wipro Limited and 1 other — 2019

Case reference: 1401937/2018
Decision date: 8 August 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Oliver Representation
Venue: Bristol

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr Mark Patterson (1) Mr Michael Sandford (2) Mr David Ball (3) Mr Stephen Kempton (4)

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal heard the case at Bristol on 5-8 August 2019 before Employment Judge Oliver sitting alone. The written record identifies the issue as whether the Claimants transferred to the employment of the Second Respondent under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.

The Tribunal found that the Claimants did not transfer to the employment of the Second Respondent under TUPE. On that basis, the claims against the Second Respondent were dismissed. The written judgment does not record any monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Transfer of undertakings (TUPE)	The Tribunal found that the Claimants did not transfer to the employment of the Second Respondent under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, and the claims against the Second Respondent were dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.