Case 2402953/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Duffy Mr A Priestner Mr C Ashton Mr J Astle Mr C Birkett Mr L Cahill v Jones Lighting Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402953/2021
- Decision date
- 17 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Duffy Mr A Priestner Mr C Ashton Mr J Astle Mr C Birkett Mr L Cahill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn the six linked cases, the tribunal held that there was not a relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 from Jones Lighting Limited to Altitude Services Limited. That finding resolved the TUPE issue against the claimants.
The written record states that Employment Judge Slater gave reasons orally at the hearing on 13 January 2023, and that written reasons would not be provided unless a request had been made within 14 days of the written record being sent on 17 January 2023. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The judgment records that there was not a relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 from Jones Lighting Limited to Altitude Services Limited. It covers the linked case numbers 2402953/2021, 2405618/2021, 2405917/2021, 2405597/2021, 2407228/2021 and 2407229/2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.