header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 December 2016 / John McMullen
Issue: 7726 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Time for change

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7726_mcmullen

John McMullen discusses TUPE & service provision change disputes
  • The Salvation Army Trustee Company v Coventry Cyrenians Limited : obiter, the EAT raises some fascinating issues on the better (alternative) resolution of TUPE disputes.

By virtue of reg 3(2A) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246), for a service provision change, the activities being carried out by another person in succession to a previous provider (or client) must be activities which are “fundamentally the same” as the activities carried out by the person who has ceased to carry them out. This rule was introduced by the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/16) and is a consolidation of a previous case law rule (see, eg, Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd (in liquidation) UKEAT/0286/08/RN) to this effect. This was the provision under consideration in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of The Salvation Army Trustee Company v Coventry Cyrenians Limited UKEAT/0120/16/RN. Obiter, the EAT also raises some fascinating issues

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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll