Case 1801288/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v KTH Fabrications Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) and Others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1801288/2022
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds and
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Leeds and by CVP on 5 and 6 June 2023 before Employment Judge Davies. The written judgment records a single substantive finding: there was no relevant transfer within the meaning of Regulation 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 from KTH Fabrications Ltd to Abacus Fabrications Ltd.
The judgment also records that Abacus Fabrications Ltd's employer counterclaim against the first claimant, Mr McFarlane, was dismissed on withdrawal by Abacus Fabrications Ltd. No monetary award or other remedy is set out in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal held that there was no relevant transfer within the meaning of Regulation 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 from KTH Fabrications Ltd to Abacus Fabrications Ltd. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Abacus Fabrications Ltd's employer counterclaim against the first claimant, Mr McFarlane, was dismissed on withdrawal by Abacus Fabrications Ltd. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 3 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.