header-logo header-logo

06 May 2010 / Nicholas Dobson
Issue: 7416 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

The changing face of TUPE

Nicholas Dobson examines an eternal well-spring of legal surprises

In Ward Hadaway v Capsticks and others (UKEAT/0471/09/SM) the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) had to grapple with the thorny issue of whether TUPE applied when a panel law firm lost a tender to provide legal services to a client body. Judgment was given on 25 March 2010. But first a look at the prequel.

Primeval TUPE

Before the fall, ie before old TUPE was taken in for reconstruction resulting in the sleek, new TUPE offered since 6 April 2006 by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) there was endless dispute, litigation and uncertainty about whether in various different circumstances the old 1981 TUPE Regulations would apply to protect the employment of those employees affected when a public authority or other organisation contracted out functions that had previously been conducted in-house. For if TUPE did apply to a transfer of an undertaking all the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of the originating transferor organisation arising under the contracts of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll