header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 February 2016 / John McMullen
Issue: 7688 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

A clear run?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
001_nlj_7688_mcmullen

John McMullen tackles the latest TUPE obstacle course

It is trite law that TUPE, and the EU Acquired Rights Directive 2001/23, upon which TUPE is based, both require a change of employer for transfer protection to apply. So, for example, when a company is taken over by way of the acquisition of shares in that company, the employment contract is unaffected, the company remains the employer, and TUPE does not apply.

In another context, in Hyde Housing Association Ltd v Layton UK/EAT/0124/15/MC, the EAT had to consider a similar issue. Could there be a relevant transfer for TUPE purposes where an employee moves from an employment contract with one employer to an employment contract with several employers, including the original employer?

In this case, the claimant was employed by Martlet Homes Limited as a decorator. Martlet is a registered provider of social housing in the South East. On 28 December 2007 the claimant was told that Martlet would join the Hyde Group, becoming a subsidiary of Hyde Housing Association Ltd (HHA). This would

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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

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