Case 3303624/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Avram v Smartsec Solutions Limited and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 3303624/2024
- Decision date
- 13 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr R Avram
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary issue was whether there was a TUPE transfer of the claimant's employment from Smartsec Solutions Limited to Karter Estates Limited in or around January 2024 when the building where the claimant worked was sold. The tribunal considered the case as one about whether there had been a service provision change.
The tribunal found that the services had been provided by the first respondent on behalf of Helix, which managed the building for the previous owner, and that Helix was not retained after the sale. It found that the client changed, that the security and concierge activities did not continue after the services ceased, and that between 5 January 2024 and 7 February 2024 the claimant remained employed and paid by the first respondent.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant's employment did not transfer from the first respondent to the second respondent and that there was no relevant transfer. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | Preliminary hearing determined that there was no relevant transfer under TUPE and that the claimant's employment did not transfer from the first respondent to the second respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Regulation 3 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
- Regulation 3(1)(b)(iii) TUPE 2006
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.