header-logo header-logo

A clear run?

25 February 2016 / John McMullen
Issue: 7688 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll