Case 1801031/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v NHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board and The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 1801031/2024
- Decision date
- 1 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn reconsideration under Rule 68(1) and 68(2) of the Employment Tribunal Procedural Rules 2024, Employment Judge Shulman confirmed the 17 December 2024 decision. The tribunal considered the proposed amendment and joinder applications in light of Outasight VB Limited v Brown, Selkent Bus Company Limited v Moore, Abercrombie and ors v AGA Rangemaster Limited, Vaughan v Modality Partnership, and Trimbell and or v North Lanarkshire Council.
The tribunal found that the proposed TUPE allegations were entirely new factual allegations and a substantial alteration to the basis of the claim. It accepted that a relevant transfer took place on 1 July 2024 and observed that the pleading did not clearly set out the precise alleged breach under Regulations 13 and 13A TUPE or the basis on which the claimant had a right to complain, although it also found that the TUPE amendments were not out of time.
The tribunal took account of the delay in amending the claim and in naming the correct second respondent, for which no explanation had been given. It also considered the hardship to R2 if joined, including that R2 had not been involved in the transfer and would have to prepare from scratch on earlier aspects of the case. For those reasons, it refused the TUPE amendments and did not allow R2 to be joined as a party, and the original decision was confirmed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | On reconsideration the tribunal confirmed its earlier refusal to allow amendments advancing TUPE complaints and refused to join R2 as a party. It treated the TUPE pleading as a substantial new factual basis, but did not make a substantive merits determination of any TUPE liability. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 68 interests of justice
- Outasight interests of justice discretion
- Selkent amendment factors
- Abercrombie substantial difference in issues
- Vaughan real practical consequences
- Trimbell hardship on adding a TUPE party
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.