Case 2403473/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Stenson and others v Smart DCC Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2403473/2024
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Representatives
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Stenson and others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered whether the insourcing of some night and out-of-hours service activities from Capita Business Services Limited to Smart DCC Limited was a service provision change under TUPE, and whether the claimants were assigned to the transferring services. The tribunal found that the activities carried out by the respondent after the change were fundamentally the same as the activities previously carried out by CBSL, although not every activity of the out-of-hours team transferred.
The tribunal found that the out-of-hours team was an organised grouping of employees whose principal purpose was carrying out the activities required for the respondent to meet its regulatory obligations during 8pm to 8am, 365 days a year. It found that all claimants were assigned to the transferring services, including analysts and Mr Stenson as team leader, and that the relevant transfer took place on 18 April 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Preliminary hearing judgment decided that there was a relevant TUPE transfer and that all claimants, including case 2403473/2024, were assigned to the transferring services. The PDF text provided was truncated, but the judgment section and final conclusions were available. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- TUPE regulation 3(1)(b)
- TUPE regulation 3(2A)
- TUPE regulation 3(a)(i)
- TUPE regulation 4
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.