header-logo header-logo

17 February 2021 / John McMullen
Issue: 7921 / Categories: Features , Employment , TUPE
printer mail-detail

Surviving the TUPE transfer

39785
John McMullen provides an update on TUPE in relation to restrictive covenants
  • TUPE and restrictive covenants: the background.
  • The P14 Medical case: covenants, novation and liability.

In the recent England and Wales High Court case of P14 Medical Ltd v Mahon [2020] EWHC 1823 Mr Justice Cavanagh expressed the view that it is beyond doubt that a restrictive covenant in a transferring employee’s employment contract can transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, SI 2006/246 (TUPE). In this case, a TUPE transfer occurred. Mr Mahon was a transferring employee. After the transfer, Mr Mahon resigned from the transferee, P14 Medical, to join a competitor of the business. But Mr Mahon’s transferred employment contract had restrictions which forbade that. Could P14 Medical sue to enforce those restrictions? In principle, yes, said Cavanagh J. As the effect of TUPE is that the contracts of employment of all employees in the part transferred are automatically transferred, by operation of law, from the transferor to the transferee, and the

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