header-logo header-logo

Court rejects artificial use of TUPE

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll