header-logo header-logo

Special assignment

07 December 2012 / John McMullen
Issue: 7541 / Categories: Features , Terms&conditions , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail
istock_000019359930medium_4

John McMullen casts an eye over the court’s approach to team participation & service provision change under TUPE

In broad terms (and subject to some express exclusions), whether there is a relevant transfer by way of service provision change (SPC) under reg 3(1)(b) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 2006 depends on whether “activities” on behalf of a client have ceased to be carried out by one person (either a client on its own behalf, or a contractor) and are, instead, carried out by another person on that client’s behalf.

A pre-condition, however, is that, immediately before the SPC, there must have been an organised grouping of employees, the principal purpose of which was to carry out those activities on behalf of the client (reg 3(3)(a)(i)). This article examines the rigour with which this provision is required to be examined. It is also to be stressed that it is not enough for the employee to point out that the organised grouping exists before the SPC. The employee must be

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll