Case 2500006/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Parkinson v Eco-Option (UK) Limited and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 2500006/2019
- Decision date
- 1 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicol Members
- Venue
- Middlesbrough
- Panel members
- Mr P Curtis, Mr S Wykes
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Parkinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Middlesbrough on 11 July 2019 before Employment Judge Nicol, sitting with lay members Mr P Curtis and Mr S Wykes. The claimant appeared in person and the respondents were represented by Mr L Nevels, director of both respondent companies.
The only complaint recorded in the judgment was that there had been a failure to consult pursuant to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. After hearing the parties, the tribunal unanimously found that complaint not well founded and dismissed it.
The judgment records no monetary award and no split of any remedy because the claim failed in full. It also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of a failure to consult under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 was not well founded. | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.