Case 3308976/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Hussain, Employment Consultant — 2023
- Case reference
- 3308976/2022
- Decision date
- 20 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms Rachel Quillen had resigned on 3 February 2022 with effect from 28 February 2022. It therefore held that she was not employed immediately preceding the transfer from Crocus Care Limited to AMD Care Company (UK) Limited.
The judge referred to regulation 43 of the TUPE Regulations 2006 and stated that an employee must be employed by the transferor immediately prior to the transfer in order to transfer to the transferee. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the claims of constructive dismissal and disability discrimination against the respondent. No monetary award was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had resigned on 3 February 2022 effective 28 February 2022 and was not employed immediately preceding the transfer from Crocus Care Limited to the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed on the same basis: the tribunal found the claimant was not employed immediately before the transfer, so she did not transfer to the respondent. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Regulation 43 of the TUPE Regulations 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.