header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
30 May 2012 / John McMullen
Issue: 7516 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Employment
printer mail-detail

The transfer market

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
football_transfer_4

John McMullen examines the latest round of judicial activity on TUPE

There seems to be no ebb in the tide of cases on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE). As usual, the concepts of service provision change, and changing employment terms following a TUPE transfer, feature significantly.

Assignment

In deliberating whether there has been a service provision change (SPC) under reg 3(1)(b) of TUPE is it sufficient to say that employees will transfer if, simply, they “go with the work”? Not so, said the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman [2012] UKEAT/0223/11. Instead, there needs to be an analytical distinction between an organised grouping of employees (reg 3(3)(a)(i)) on the one hand and, on the other, whether employees are assigned (reg 4(1)) to it. Both of these issues need to be addressed in an SPC case.

Eddie Stobart (ES) is a warehousing and logistics service provider. It had 35 employees at one site in Nottinghamshire servicing at least five clients.

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
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll