header-logo header-logo

04 February 2022 / John McMullen
Issue: 7965 / Categories: Features , Employment , TUPE
printer mail-detail

On top of TUPE

71054
John McMullen presents a round-up of the latest cases on TUPE transfers
  • Transfer of benefits: income protection payments.
  • Incorporated employment terms: custom and practice.
  • Fiduciary duties and pre-transfer extraordinary employee payments.
  • Collective redundancy consultations.
  • Fixed-term framework agreements and transfer of undertakings: an EU perspective.

Litigation over TUPE transfers has quietened recently, but there are nuggets still to be found. In this article, we analyse recent developments.

Transfer of benefits

In Amdocs Systems Group Ltd v Langton UKEAT/0093/20/AT, it has been held that TUPE protected a transferring employee’s sickness benefits in full as the old employer had not informed the employee these could be changed under the insurance policy concerned. The employee’s summary of benefits set out the terms of a long-term sickness scheme, and the level of income protection payments (IPP) payable under it. These included reference to an ‘escalator’ of 5% per annum which would apply after the first 52 weeks.

In 2009, the claimant began a period of long-term sickness absence and then began to receive IPP. This was

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll