CareTech Community Services Ltd and Creative Support Ltd
Case Summary
The claimant's employment transferred to the second respondent by a TUPE transfer. The claims against the first respondent are withdrawn. The tribunal is considering whether the claimant's claims for unlawful deductions from wages were submitted within the time limit.
Key Issues
- •unlawful deductions from wages
Claim Types
Decision Text
1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Ms D Ogbebor Respondents: (1) CareTech Community Services Limited (2) Creative Support Limited Heard at: Manchester, by video On: 10 December 2025 Before: Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION: Claimant: self-represented, with the assistance of Ms Ogbebor, claimant’s daughter Respondent: Mr Mulholland, solicitor JUDGMENT AT PRELIMINARY HEARING 1. The claimant’s employment transferred to the second respondent by reason of a TUPE transfer on 19 August 2024. 2. The second respondent is joined as a respondent to these claims by means of Rule 35 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. 3. The claims against the first respondent are withdrawn by the claimant and are hereby dismissed. 4. The first respondent is ordered to provide documents and information to the claimant relevant to the claims by reason of Rule 33 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 by 21 January 2026, as set out below. A separate order will be served on the first respondent for these purposes. 5. The claimant’s union representative, Amanda Cunliffe, is ordered to attend the hearing on 24 March 2026 by video to give evidence relevant to the time limits for the claims by means of Rule 34 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. A separate order will be served on her for these purposes. 2 6. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal gave judgment that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant’s complaints of unlawful deductions from wages in June and July 2024 to be presented to the Tribunal within the time limit in s23 Employment Rights Act 1996 and that they were presented within a reasonable period thereafter. However, on reflection after the hearing the Tribunal has reconsidered this decision on its own initiative (under rule 71 ET Rules of Procedure) and considers that evidence on the matter of the union’s involvement in the delay in approaching ACAS...
Employer
Case Details
- Case Number
- 2401016/2025
- Decision Date
- 19/12/2025
- Published
- 13/02/2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker