Case 1806171/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Tillotson v SMC Premier Group Limited and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 1806171/2020
- Decision date
- 17 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss M Tillotson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 10 September 2021, Employment Judge Lancaster determined a TUPE issue arising between SMC Premier Group Limited and MYA Cosmetic Surgery Limited (in administration). The tribunal found that there was not a relevant transfer from the First to the Second Respondent on 16 July 2020, or at any other time, under regulation 3(1)(b)(iii) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 because the condition in regulation 3(3) was not satisfied.
The judgment records that the Second Respondent client did not ever intend that cleaning activities after any alleged service provision change, said by the First Respondent contractor to have taken place, would be carried out by it as transferee. It also records that the Claimant's engagement as a cleaner in or about October 2020, whether by the Second Respondent, by MYA Clinics Ltd in creditors voluntary liquidation, or by any other person, was for a task of short-term duration pending closure of the Leeds premises and relocation to Morley in December 2020.
As a result, the Second Respondent was removed from the proceedings. The judgment states that the claims against the First Respondent would continue to final hearing. No monetary remedy was determined in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | At the preliminary hearing, the tribunal held that there was not a relevant transfer from the First Respondent to the Second Respondent on 16 July 2020, or at any other time, under regulation 3(1)(b)(iii) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 because the condition in regulation 3(3) was not satisfied. The Second Respondent was removed from the proceedings. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 3(1)(b)(iii) of the TUPE Regulations 2006
- regulation 3(3) of the 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.