Case 6028251/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr V Ram v Santander UK plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 6028251/2025
- Decision date
- 22 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Spencer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr V Ram
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought an individual claim for a protective award, alleging failure to consult about a TUPE transfer and proposed redundancy. The tribunal recorded that his employment transferred from Santander to KPMG under TUPE and that he was later made redundant.
The tribunal found that Santander recognised independent trade unions and that, in those circumstances, the duty under Regulation 13 was to inform and consult the trade union rather than individual employees. Under Regulation 15, only the trade union had standing to bring the relevant complaint. The claim therefore had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out.
The respondent also argued that the claim was an abuse of process because the claimant was part of later multiple proceedings including a protective award claim. The tribunal noted that the claimant was not entitled to bring two claims alleging the same matters, but did not need to decide that issue because the individual claim had already been struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The claim was for a protective award for alleged failure to inform and consult under Regulations 13 and 15 of TUPE. It was struck out because the claimant had no standing where a recognised trade union existed. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 38(1) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Regulations 13 and 15 of TUPE
- Nationwide Building Society v Benn 2010 IRLR 92
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.