header-logo header-logo

The changing face of TUPE

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll