Asbestos removal workers' TUPE claims struck out: no transfer found
A group of former asbestos removal workers had their claims against three companies struck out after the tribunal found there was no TUPE transfer of their employment.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #tupe-transfer
- #strike-out
- #no-reasonable-prospect
- #asbestos-removal
- #preliminary-hearing
Key facts
- The claimants were employed by the First Respondent (Kaefer Ltd) for asbestos removal work at properties managed by the Third Respondent.
- The First Respondent ceased its contract with the Third Respondent and dismissed the claimants on 8 November 2021.
- The Second Respondent was approached to take over the contract but negotiations failed and it never performed the work.
- The Third Respondent never carried out the asbestos removal work in-house.
- The Fourth Respondent only facilitated emergency asbestos removal via another company, not the regular work previously done by the First Respondent.
Timeline
-
Claimants dismissed
The claimants' employment with the First Respondent ended and they were treated as dismissed.
-
First Respondent gives notice
The First Respondent gave notice to terminate its contract with the Third Respondent for asbestos removal services.
-
Third Respondent seeks new contractor
The Third Respondent began looking for a new contractor to replace the First Respondent.
-
Approach to Second Respondent
The Third Respondent approached the Second Respondent to take over the contract.
-
Negotiations with Second Respondent stall
The Second Respondent decided the contract was not economically viable and negotiations ended.
-
Fourth Respondent involved
The Third Respondent approached the Fourth Respondent for asbestos surveys and emergency removal.
-
Preliminary hearing (in person)
The first day of the preliminary hearing to consider strike-out applications by the Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents.
-
Preliminary hearing (hybrid) and judgment
The second day of the hearing; Employment Judge Heap struck out the claims against the Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claims against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents should be struck out because there was no real prospect of proving that a TUPE transfer had taken place when the First Respondent lost its contract.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claims against the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents.
The key reason was that none of those respondents had taken over the asbestos removal work in a way that would amount to a TUPE transfer. The Second Respondent was approached but negotiations failed; the Third Respondent never did the work in-house; and the Fourth Respondent only handled emergency removal, not the regular work.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out at a preliminary stage.
Lessons & takeaways
- TUPE transfers require an actual transfer of an economic entity – simply losing a contract is not enough if no one takes over the work.
- If you are dismissed because a contract ends, check whether a new contractor has actually started doing the same work before assuming TUPE applies.
- Strike-out applications are common at preliminary hearings if the facts clearly show no transfer – you need evidence of a transfer to proceed.
- Employment tribunals will strike out claims with no reasonable prospect of success early, saving time and costs.
What this case shows in practice
A group of former asbestos removal workers lost their jobs when their employer, Kaefer Limited, ended a contract with Nottingham City Homes Limited. The workers believed their employment should have transferred to one of the other companies involved under TUPE rules. However, the tribunal found that none of those companies actually took over the asbestos removal work in a way that triggered a transfer.
The Second Respondent was approached but decided the contract was not economically viable. The Third Respondent never carried out the work in-house. The Fourth Respondent only handled emergency asbestos removal, not the regular work the claimants had done. Without a transfer of the economic entity, the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimants could have investigated earlier whether any of the respondents actually started performing the same work. The facts showed that no one took over the contract – the work simply stopped or was done on an emergency basis by a different company. A realistic assessment of the TUPE position might have avoided pursuing claims against respondents who had no connection to the transfer.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that TUPE does not apply just because a contract ends and an employee is dismissed. There must be a genuine transfer of an economic entity that retains its identity. Employees in similar situations should check whether a new contractor has actually begun the same work before bringing claims against multiple parties. The tribunal's willingness to strike out claims at a preliminary stage shows the importance of having a solid factual basis for a TUPE argument.
Similar cases
Less than two years' service: unfair dismissal claim thrown out
A tribunal dismissed an unfair dismissal claim because the employee had not worked for two years, and struck out a race discrimination claim that had no supporting facts.
Sanctions law prevented maternity pay: dismissal claim struck out
A housekeeping assistant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because UK sanctions on the company's owner made it illegal to pay her. The tribunal said the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
Founder's unfair dismissal claim struck out: no continuous employment before TUPE transfer
A former CEO who founded the business could not show he was an employee of the transferor company, so his unfair dismissal claim was struck out for lack of continuous service.