Case 2305882/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Semple v NHS Business Services Authority — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305882/2025
- Decision date
- 19 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mclaren Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Semple
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant withdrew the breach of contract claim and the indirect race discrimination claim, and both were dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal also dismissed the TUPE failure to consult claim because it was brought more than three months after the transfer and it was reasonably practicable for it to have been brought within that time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it.
The tribunal dismissed the further TUPE protection claim because it found there was no relevant transfer. All sex discrimination claims were dismissed because the claimant's complaint, other than pay, was based on age and/or race rather than gender. The equal pay claim based on like work was found not well founded and did not succeed.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim for breach of contract was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claim for indirect discrimination on the grounds of race was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The failure to consult claim under TUPE was dismissed because it was brought more than three months after the transfer and the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The claim for breach of the protection provided by TUPE was dismissed because the tribunal found there was no relevant transfer. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that all claims for sex discrimination were dismissed because the claimant did not bring any complaint that his treatment, other than pay, was because of his gender. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | The claim for equal pay on the basis of like work was found not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.