Case 1402744/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Griffiths, Counsel v Nestor Primecare Services Limited In Administration — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402744/2019
- Decision date
- 19 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Griffiths, Counsel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimants’ claims for redundancy pay were well founded and succeeded. It found that there had been a service provision change within Regulation 3(b)(ii) of TUPE 2006 from the First Respondent to the Second Respondent on 1 December 2018. The First Respondent had provided supported residential care for the elderly and others, including residential premises owned by Somerset County Council, and the relevant activities were on-site care between 10pm and 7am together with 24-hour incident emergency cover.
The tribunal found that the claimants were part of an organised grouping of employees, described as the Extra Care Core Staff, which undertook that activity. It further held that liability for the claimants’ redundancy pay transferred from the First to the Second Respondent under Regulation 4 TUPE 2006. The Second Respondent was ordered to pay Mrs G Jones £3,818.50 and Mrs S Hunt £12,840.00 by way of redundancy pay.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Claim of Mrs G Jones; redundancy pay ordered against the Second Respondent. | Upheld | — | £3,819 |
| Redundancy | Claim of Mrs S Hunt; redundancy pay ordered against the Second Respondent. | Upheld | — | £12,840 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,659
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 3(b)(ii) TUPE 2006
- Regulation 4 TUPE 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.