Case 1811555/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Healthcare Environmental Services Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1811555/2018
- Decision date
- 11 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Leeds on 9 to 11 March 2020, Employment Judge Cox heard the claims listed in the schedule, with all claimants other than Mrs Rothwell appearing in person. Mrs Rothwell did not attend. The first and second respondents did not attend, and the third respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal decided that there was no relevant transfer within Regulation 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 between the first or second respondent and the third respondent. On that basis, the claims against the third respondent failed and were dismissed. The tribunal also found that the claimants were employed by the first respondent, and the claims against the second respondent likewise failed and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons available only if requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Preliminary hearing. The tribunal found there was no relevant transfer within Regulation 3 of the TUPE 2006 between the first or second respondent and the third respondent, and dismissed the claims against the second and third respondents. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) 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.