Case 3202461/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Deben Contracts Limited v Ko-Sheen Contract Cleaning Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3202461/2019
- Decision date
- 5 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Deben Contracts Limited
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at East London Hearing Centre on 4 August 2020 before Employment Judge G Tobin. The tribunal recorded that Deben Contracts Limited’s claim against Ko-Sheen Contract Cleaning Limited was a claim under Regulation 11 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.
The tribunal found that the respondent breached Regulation 11. The judgment does not set out any separate liability analysis beyond that conclusion in the extracted text provided.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay compensation in the sum of £1,900. No separate breakdown of the award is given in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The tribunal held that the respondent breached Regulation 11 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 and awarded compensation of £1,900. | Upheld | — | £1,900 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,900
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,900
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.