ABC v Huntercombe (No 12) [2026] EWCA Civ 1161 concerned the scope of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE). ABC sought damages arising from her placement at a private psychiatric facility, Huntercombe Hospital, where she alleges she was mentally and verbally abused by staff and repeatedly restrained. More than 50 similar claims brought by other claimants are due to be considered at a case management conference in the autumn.
However, not only is Huntercombe in liquidation but its public liability insurance cover includes a deductible of £250,000 per claim, which would wipe out most of ABC’s claim. In 2021, a TUPE transfer of some of Huntercombe’s staff was made to health and social care provider Active Young People. Consequently, ABC sought to argue that Huntercombe had also transferred vicarious liability for the acts and omissions of two employees.
The High Court rejected ABC’s argument. Lords Justice Coulson and Bean and Sir Launcelot Henderson unanimously dismissed ABC’s appeal.
Coulson LJ said: ‘ABC cannot use provisions that were designed to safeguard the rights of employees to make a claim which would not otherwise be open to her, in circumstances where there are no relevant rights at all.
‘The judge chose to achieve that goal by construing the words as referring to “a direct liability in the sense of being a liability the transferor has to an employee”. I consider that the word “direct” may be imprecise and could lead to argument... In my view, it is better simply to say that the liabilities referred to in Regulation 4(2)(a) do not extend to the transferor's vicarious liability to third parties for the acts and omissions of employees prior to transfer.’
