Claimant v NHS Business Services Authority
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant withdrew this claim during the hearing. No substantive determination was made by the tribunal on the merits.
The claimant withdrew this claim of indirect race discrimination during the hearing. No substantive determination was made by the tribunal on the merits.
The claim was brought more than three months after the date on which the transfer was completed and it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought within that time. The tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim due to it being out of time.
The claim for breach of protection provided by TUPE Regulations 2006 was dismissed because the tribunal found there was no relevant transfer within the meaning of the regulations.
The tribunal found that the claimant's complaint was that his treatment (other than pay) was because of the protected characteristics of age and/or race. The claimant did not bring any complaint that his treatment (other than pay) was because of his gender, so all sex discrimination claims were dismissed.
The tribunal found that the equal pay claim on the basis of like work was not well founded. The claimant failed to establish that he was engaged in like work with his comparator or that any pay difference was due to sex discrimination.
Facts
Mr Semple, representing himself, brought multiple claims against NHS Business Services Authority including breach of contract, indirect race discrimination, TUPE-related claims, sex discrimination, and equal pay. The case involved allegations of a TUPE transfer and pay disparity. The claimant withdrew some claims during the two-day hearing in December 2025.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. Two claims (breach of contract and indirect race discrimination) were dismissed upon withdrawal. The TUPE consultation claim was dismissed as out of time. The TUPE protection claim failed because there was no relevant transfer. Sex discrimination claims were dismissed as wrongly pleaded (claimant complained of age/race not sex). The equal pay claim failed on its merits.
Practical note
Claimants must ensure claims are properly pleaded with the correct protected characteristics and brought within statutory time limits, particularly for TUPE consultation claims which have strict three-month deadlines.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2305882/2025
- Decision date
- 19 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No