Case 3310831/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ecoserv FM Group Ltd and Others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310831/2023
- Decision date
- 20 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked as a cleaner for the First Respondent from 7 June 2021. She complained of pregnancy discrimination said to have occurred between 25 February 2023 and 10 July 2023, and her claim form was issued on 5 September 2023 against the First Respondent. The case later involved TUPE transfers from the First Respondent to the Third Respondent on 1 January 2024, and from the Third Respondent to the Second Respondent on 14 March 2024.
At preliminary hearings on 1 July 2024 and 19 May 2025, the Second and Third Respondents were added to the proceedings. On 22 September 2025 the claimant told the tribunal that she had reached a settlement agreement with the Second Respondent and asked for the claim against that respondent to be dismissed.
At the hearing on 30 September 2025, Employment Judge S Moore explained that, under regulation 4(2) of the TUPE Regulations, any liability arising from the claimant's employment with the First Respondent had transferred to the Second Respondent, which remained her employer. The tribunal also noted that there was no separate claim against either the First or Third Respondent. In addition, Companies House searches showed that the First Respondent was in administration, meaning proceedings against it were automatically stayed under Schedule B1 paragraph 43(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
In those circumstances, and because the claimant had settled with the Second Respondent, the tribunal dismissed the claim against all three respondents.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The underlying claim concerned pregnancy discrimination. The tribunal dismissed the claim against all three respondents after the claimant informed it that she had reached a settlement agreement with the Second Respondent. The tribunal also explained that liability under TUPE had transferred to the Second Respondent and that there was no separate claim against the First or Third Respondent. | Dismissed | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- regulation 4(2) of the TUPE Regulations
- Schedule B1 paragraph 43(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986
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.