header-logo header-logo

TUPE roundup: latest caselaw

27 September 2018 / John McMullen
Issue: 7810 / Categories: Features , TUPE , Employment
printer mail-detail

From fragmentation to automatically unfair dismissal, John McMullen serves up some recent caselaw

  • Covers cases on fragmentation, random allocation, reg 3(5) and automatically unfair dismissal in relation to TUPE.

Service provision change, the transfer of public administrative functions and automatic unfair dismissal all feature in this autumn round up for TUPE aficionados.

Service provision change

A service provision change TUPE transfer occurs when activities carried out by one provider are taken over by a new provider, as long as there was, immediately before the change, an organised grouping of employees, the principal purpose of which was to carry out the relevant activities for the client (TUPE, Reg 3 (1) (b)).

When one provider is replaced by another provider the position is quite simple. But the position can be more complex where a single provider is replaced by multiple providers. In principle, TUPE may still apply, but not, the case law says, where, as a result of the change, the services are fragmented, and randomly allocated among new providers. This was the subject matter

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