header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
16 July 2015 / Ian Smith
Issue: 7661 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Keeping up with the Joneses (& TUPE)!

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7661_smith

Ian Smith recommends some light reading

Employment lawyers wondering what reading matter to pack as they head for their foreign holidays might well be advised to include a copy of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE). Not only will this look incredibly cool on trendy beaches, transforming them instantly from nerds into babe/hunk magnets, but it might even give them an outside chance of keeping up with the law in this notorious area. Two cases are reported in this month’s column, both on basic questions which in any sane area of law would have been settled 20 years ago.

Also selected this month are a Court of Appeal decision on an important point on the definition of indirect discrimination and a rare case on the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/ 3426) which shows a distinction from the much more widely used rules on collective redundancy consultation, which could be doubly disadvantageous to employees.

TUPE (1)

One requirement of a service provision

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Seddons GSC—Ben Marks

Partner joins residential real estate team

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Winckworth Sherwood—Shazia Bashir

Social housing team announces partner appointment

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

University of Manchester: The LLM driving tech-focused career growth

Manchester’s online LLM has accelerated career progression for its graduates

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll