header-logo header-logo

Contemplating relocation

Sinclair Cramsie & Clare Harrington unravel the complexities of relocating TUPE transferees

It is not uncommon for a business to take over a local competitor in order to acquire the competitor’s business and workforce but not its premises. The outcome in the case of Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust ET Case No. 2329562/2007 has left many employers questioning their approach in situations where they require a newly-acquired business and workforce to move—on some occasions, a relatively modest distance. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE) provide a clear route for employees unwilling to make such a move to claim automatic unfair dismissal. The opportunities for successfully defending such a claim appear to be limited. 

Contract transfer

Ms Tapere was employed by Lewisham Primary Care Trust, based at Burgess Park in Camberwell. Her contract of employment was transferred by virtue of TUPE to the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. It was anticipated, both by the transferee and transferor, that the claimant’s place of work

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll