Case 2410509/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Sayle v Evolve Facilities Limited t/a Total Clean — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410509/2019
- Decision date
- 2 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Ms F Crane, Mr P C Northam
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Sayle
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Liverpool on 5 December 2019 before Employment Judge Robinson, Ms F Crane and Mr P C Northam, the tribunal determined a TUPE issue under regulation 11 of the TUPE Regulations 2006. The claimant was Mrs D Sayle and the respondent was Evolve Facilities Limited t/a Total Clean.
The tribunal held that the respondent had breached regulation 11 because it did not provide the relevant information to the transferee, identified in the judgment as the claimant. On that basis, the tribunal upheld the TUPE claim.
The tribunal awarded £750 compensation, payable forthwith. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no further written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found the respondent in breach of regulation 11 of the TUPE Regulations 2006 for failing to provide the relevant information to the transferee; it awarded £750 compensation payable forthwith. No separate breakdown of the award was given. | Upheld | — | £750 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £750
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £750
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.