Case 1601086/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lesley Jones v Blackpill Ltd and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601086/2021
- Decision date
- 16 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Macdonald Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms Lesley Jones
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Cardiff Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge E Macdonald heard the case by video link on 28 and 29 July 2022. The judgment concerned whether there had been a service provision change on 11 May 2021 between Blackpill Ltd and Angela Limited for the purposes of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
The tribunal found that there was not a service provision change within Regulation 3(b)(ii) because the conditions in Regulation 3(3)(a)(i) were not met. On that basis, the tribunal held that the purported service provision change did not amount to a relevant transfer within the meaning of Regulation 2 of the TUPE Regulations 2006.
The written judgment records those conclusions only and directs that a further case management preliminary hearing would follow separately. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment, and written reasons were not provided in the record because the reasons had been given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal held there was not a service provision change on 11 May 2021 within Regulation 3(b)(ii) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 because the conditions in Regulation 3(3)(a)(i) were not met. It further held that the arrangement did not amount to a relevant transfer under Regulation 2. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Regulation 3(b)(ii) TUPE Regulations 2006
- Regulation 3(3)(a)(i) TUPE Regulations 2006
- Regulation 2 TUPE Regulations 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.