Case 3200361/2023 · Employment Tribunal
TES 2000 Limited v Vital Human Resources Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200361/2023
- Decision date
- 13 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Manley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
TES 2000 Limited
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied to strike out all or part of the claim and, in the alternative, for a deposit order. Employment Judge Manley held that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the strike out application. The judgment also states that, if jurisdiction had existed, the tribunal would not have struck out the claim or any part of it.
The tribunal further held that no deposit order should be made because it could not be said that any allegations or arguments in the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. The claim was therefore allowed to proceed to the hearing listed in the case management summary for 24 to 26 September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Procedural ruling only. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the respondent's strike out application. It said that if it had had jurisdiction, it would not have struck out the claim or any part of it, and it made no deposit order because it could not be said that any allegation or argument had little reasonable prospect of success. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- little reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.