Mr P Reed (1) Mrs E Burnip (2) Ms S Eglon (3) Mr F Reid (4) v Deborah Jude as Deputy for Property and Affairs for Stephen Martin and 1 other — 2023

The tribunal found that there was a service provision change within Regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) of TUPE 2006 when SM's care moved from JSP to Embracing Care in December 2020. It accepted that SM's needs did not change, that JSP had provided a dedicated team of seven carers, and that Embracing Care continued the same personal-care activities at St Godric's in a shared-living setting. The change in staffing ratios, the move from an individual bungalow to a shared home, and the reduction in weekly cost from £3,900 to £2,700 were treated as differences in model and cost rather than a fundamental change in the activities.

The tribunal rejected Embracing Care's argument that the relevant client had changed and held that SM remained the beneficiary of the care arrangements. It found that the claimants' employment ended on 16 December 2020 when Embracing Care refused to engage them under TUPE terms, and it did not treat the later P45 dates as evidence of continuing employment because the delay was explained by separate holiday pay issues.

All claims against the first respondent were dismissed because the tribunal found there had been no dismissal by the first respondent. Against the second respondent, the unfair dismissal and notice-pay claims were out of time under s.111 ERA 1996, as affected by s.207B, but the statutory redundancy payment claims were brought within time and succeeded. The tribunal said the redundancy payments were payable by the second respondent in sums to be agreed between the parties, with a remedies hearing to follow if necessary.