header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
10 January 2014 / John McMullen
Issue: 7589 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

The changing of the guard

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
web_mcmullen

John McMullen surveys cases on service provision change, transfer of employment rights, & objection to transfer

Can there be a service provision change (SPC) within the meaning of regulation 3(1)(b) of TUPE, even though the client is not obliged to guarantee any level of work to the service provider? Yes, said the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Lorne Stewart Plc v (1) Hyde (2) Crowley (3) Planned Maintenance Engineering Ltd t/a Carillion (UKEAT/0408/12).

Carillion held a contract for maintenance work for Cornwall County Council under a “framework agreement”. Work was given to Carillion under this agreement, although the council was empowered to place it elsewhere and, also, Carillion had the ability to decline work offered to it. But in practice, the council gave all the work to Carillion and Carillion accepted it when given. The contract came to an end and, after a retendering process, Lorne Stewart Plc (LS) took over the service under an agreement containing similar provisions to the expired agreement with Carillion. LS refused to take Messrs Hyde

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll