header-logo header-logo

08 November 2007
Issue: 7296 / Categories: Legal News , TUPE
printer mail-detail

Court rejects artificial use of TUPE

News

The Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) and the acquired rights provisions do not confer additional benefits on employees or improve their situation, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
In Jackson v Computershare Investor Services plc the appeal court confirmed that TUPE does not give a transferred employee access to employment benefits other than those which the employee was entitled to before the transfer of the undertaking.

When Jackson joined Ci in January 1999, there were no terms relating to enhanced redundancy or severance payments in her contract of employment. In June 2004 her employment contract was transferred, under TUPE, to CIS which had an enhanced redundancy scheme. However, this drew a distinction between pre-March 2002 joiners and new entrants after 1 March 2002.

David E Grant, a barrister at Outer Temple Chambers, says the Court of Appeal rejected what it called the attempt to make artificial use of TUPE.
“Although it is unlikely that there will be further attempts to rely upon TUPE in this way,” he says, “the Court of Appeal is due to give judgment in Power v Regent Security Services Ltd on the question of whether an employee can rely upon the terms in his original contract of employment.”

Issue: 7296 / Categories: Legal News , TUPE
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll