Case 3312491/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Ibsen, Husband For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3312491/2023
- Decision date
- 28 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr K Ibsen, Husband For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant transferred to the Respondent in 2011 under TUPE and remained on her existing NHS terms and conditions. She later contended that she should have been able to move to the Respondent's Green Book terms while retaining more beneficial NHS terms, but the Tribunal held there was no statutory basis for such a TUPE claim years after the transfer and that any such claim would in any event relate to the 2011 transfer.
For the equal pay claim, the Tribunal considered the material factor defence on the assumed basis that a breach of the sex equality clause had been established. It accepted that the reason for any pay disparity was the Claimant's choice to transfer and remain on her existing terms, together with the historical position of pay freezes affecting Green Book employees, and found that the reason was not sex.
The Tribunal therefore dismissed the TUPE claims for want of jurisdiction and dismissed the Equality Act 2010 equal pay claims because the Respondent established the material factor defence.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the TUPE claim and dismissed all claims brought under those provisions. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Equal pay | The equal pay issue was considered on the hypothetical basis that a sex equality clause breach had been established; the Respondent established a material factor defence under s.69 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Regulation 4 of TUPE
- Regulation 4.9 of TUPE
- s.69 Equality Act 2010
- material factor defence
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.