header-logo header-logo

How & why not all transfers are TUPE transfers

11 April 2019 / John McMullen
Issue: 7836 / Categories: Features , Employment , TUPE
printer mail-detail

John McMullen navigates the Employment Rights Act to find a solution to complex transfers

  • ‘Successor’ employers and re-employment orders.
  • Transfers between associated employers.
  • A baffling question for employees.

Whenever employees are transferred from one employer to another, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) are the practitioner’s first port of call. However, not all cases of transfer of employment involve a TUPE transfer. In such cases the provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996), preserving statutory continuity of employment in certain instances of transfer of employment, may be an important consideration. These provisions apply irrespective of whether there is a TUPE transfer. In this article we discuss two recent cases in this area. The first concerns the power of employment tribunals to order re-engagement of an unfairly dismissed employee, either by the dismissing employer or by a successor of that employer, under ERA 1996, s 115(1). The key legal issue here is what exactly a ‘successor’ means. The second

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

Moore Barlow—Jess Ready & Natasha Jones

Moore Barlow—Jess Ready & Natasha Jones

Commercial property and corporate teams expand in Southampton

Watershed—Rob Elliott

Watershed—Rob Elliott

Employment firm expands capability with experienced hire

Devonshires—Aoife Murphy & Mandeep Sahota

Devonshires—Aoife Murphy & Mandeep Sahota

Housing management and property litigation team bolstered by partner hires

NEWS
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
Delays at HM Land Registry are no longer a background irritation but a growing source of professional risk. Writing in NLJ this week, Phil Murrin of DAC Beachcroft explores how the ‘registration gap’—now stretching up to two years in complex cases—is fuelling client frustration, priority disputes, and negligence claims
back-to-top-scroll