header-logo header-logo

Employment

15 January 2010
Issue: 7400 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

British Telecommunications plc v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 8 (QB), [2010] All ER (D) 10 (Jan)

Paragraphs 1 to 3 of Sch 2 to the British Telecommunications Act 1981, which dealt with the transfer of rights and liabilities under a contract of employment from the former Post Office to British Telecommunications plc, were to be read together.

They were a series of provisions showing how interests in property and rights and liabilities were to be attributed either to the claimant or to the Post Office in situations where the position might not have been obvious. The Act provided a default position for instances where both undertakings of the Post Office had an interest in relation to property, and that mechanism was contained in paras 1 and 2 of Sch 2.

That default position was the employees were transferred into the organisation in whose business they had been working on the day before the transfer. Further, s 33(2) of the Act clearly contemplated that rights that had existed under a contract that had come to an end

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

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