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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll