All items: Insolvency

• expand

  Albion Automotive Ltd and others v James Shaw and others [1995] EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Insolvency: Receivers not liable for unfair dismissal compensation

    Date:

    1 April 1996

    Compensation for unfair dismissal was not a liability "on" employees' contracts of employment "adopted" by administrative receivers, within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, holds the EAT in Albion Automotive Ltd and others v Shaw and others.

• expand

  Caballero v Fondo de Garantia Salarial (Fogosa) Case C-244/94 ECJ (1 report relating to this case)

  • EC: ECJ case law round-up

    Date:

    1 January 2003

    In our latest round-up of decisions from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), we look at cases on equal pay, the principle of equal treatment as related to working conditions, the meaning of a transfer for the purposes of the business transfers Directive and, finally, guarantee payments to employees following the insolvency of their employers.

• expand

  Clark v Secretary of State for Employment [1995] IRLR 421 EAT (1 report relating to this case)

  • Equal pay: Article 119 covers notice pay on employer's insolvency

    Date:

    1 July 1995

    The EAT holds in Clark v Secretary of State for Employment that pay in lieu of notice is "pay" within the meaning of Article 119, even if the payment is made by the Secretary of State for Employment out of the National Insurance Fund where the employer is insolvent.

• expand

  Clark v Secretary of State for Employment [1996] IRLR 578 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Equal pay: Pregnancy exclusion did not amount to sex discrimination

    Date:

    1 November 1996

    An employee who was on maternity leave when her employment was terminated because of her employer's insolvency was not entitled to receive from the Secretary of State a sum equal to the pay in lieu of notice she would have received from her employer on dismissal, holds the Court of Appeal in Clark v Secretary of State for Employment.

• expand

  Cyngier and others v Eurodix Ltd ET/1901358/11 to ET/1901362/11 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Administration did not justify failure to consult collectively over redundancies

    Date:

    8 December 2011

    The employer in this case fell into the classic trap of burying its head in the sand and failing to consult collectively with employees over the realistic possibility that its business might close and its workforce be made redundant.

• expand

  Everson and Barrass v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation) [2000] IRLR 202 ECJ (1 report relating to this case)

  • Everson and Barrass v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation)

    Date:

    1 March 2000

    In Everson and Barrass v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Bell Lines Ltd (in liquidation) [2000] IRLR 202 ECJ, the European Court of Justice held that the competent institution under Article 3 of the Insolvency Protection Directive for paying an employee's claims on the employer's insolvency is that of the state where they are employed.

• expand

  Golightly and others v Secretary of State for BERR ET/2512510/09 (1 report relating to this case)

  • Claimants' contracts varied so much over time that they were no longer employees

    Date:

    29 April 2010

    Comprehensive employment contracts are essential, but they can change over time, as this case demonstrates.

• expand

  Haine and another v Day [2008] IRLR 642 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • Collective redundancies: Employer company liable for post-liquidation protective award

    Date:

    29 August 2008

    In Haine and another v Day [2008] IRLR 642, the Court of Appeal held that a protective award made after the employer company went into liquidation in respect of its failure to consult before making collective redundancies was a provable, and therefore potentially recoverable, debt.

  • Haine and another v Day

    Date:

    10 July 2008

    The Court of Appeal has held that a protective award for an insolvent company's failure to consult on redundancies should have been paid out of the company's assets by the liquidator and not by the Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

• expand

  Key2Law (Surrey) LLP v De'Antiquis [2012] IRLR 212 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

  • TUPE: Administration never analogous to bankruptcy

    Date:

    26 June 2012

    In Key2Law (Surrey) LLP v De'Antiquis [2012] IRLR 212 CA, the Court of Appeal held that administration proceedings can never be said to be instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the insolvent business. Consequently, whenever a TUPE transfer of a business in administration occurs, reg.8(7) of the TUPE Regulations 2006 will not apply and any liabilities will transfer to the purchaser of the business.

  • No TUPE exemption for transfers from companies in administration

    Date:

    9 January 2012

    The Court of Appeal has held that the transfer from a company in administration does not lead to an exemption from automatic employee transfer under reg.8(7) of TUPE. 

• expand

  Krasner (administrator of Huddersfield Fine Worsteds Ltd and Globe Worsted Co Ltd) v McMath and other appeals [2005] IRLR 995 CA (1 report relating to this case)

  • Administration: Protective awards not accorded 'super-priority' in administrations

    Date:

    2 December 2005

    In Krasner v McMath, the Court of Appeal holds that, in a situation where the employer is in administration, liabilities to employees for protective awards and payments in lieu of notice, except for "garden leave" payments, are not accorded super-priority status where the administrator has adopted the contracts of employment.