TUPE case law update
This report relates to 13 case(s)
-
expand disabled
Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd and another v Wilcox and others [2006] IRLR 258 EAT (0 other reports)
-
expand disabled
Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd and another v Wilcox and others [2007] IRLR 63 CA (0 other reports)
-
expand
Baxter and others v Marks & Spencer and others [2005] All ER (D) 26 (Oct) EAT
(1 other report)
-
expand
Celtec Ltd v Astley and others [2005] IRLR 647 ECJ
(2 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 15 July 2005
In Celtec Ltd v Astley and others, the ECJ holds that Article 3(1) of the Business Transfers Directive (77/187/EC) must be interpreted as meaning that the "date of a transfer" is the date on which the employer's responsibility for carrying on the business of the unit transferred moves from the transferor to the transferee. That date is a particular point in time, which cannot be postponed to another date at the will of the transferor or transferee.
-
- Date:
- 14 June 2005
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering the point in time at which a TUPE transfer takes place.
-
expand
Delabole Slate Ltd v Berriman [1985] IRLR 305 CA
(1 other report)
-
- Date:
- 4 June 1985
In Delabole Slate Ltd v Berriman the Court of Appeal upholds the EAT's decision that a dismissal which occurs as a consequence of a change in terms of employment following the transfer of an undertaking is not a dismissal for "an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce", and so is automatically unfair under reg.8(1) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.
-
expand
G4S Justice Services v Anstey and others [2006] IRLR 588 EAT
(2 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 8 September 2006
In G4S Justice Services (UK) Ltd v Anstey and others [2006] IRLR 588 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that employees dismissed for gross misconduct prior to a TUPE transfer, but whose appeals were subsequently upheld, were employed "immediately before" the transfer, with the result that their employment transferred.
-
- Date:
- 30 May 2006
This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering TUPE.
-
expand
Lightways (Contractors) Ltd v Associated Holdings Ltd [2000] IRLR 247 CS
(1 other report)
-
- Date:
- 15 May 2000
An employment tribunal had not erred in law in taking into account the fact that the transferee had tendered and won a contract on the basis that the Transfer of Undertaking Regulations applied when deciding whether or not a relevant transfer had taken place, holds the Inner House of the Court of Session in Lightways (Contractors) Ltd v Associated Holdings Ltd.
-
expand
London Metropolitan University v Sackur and others EAT/0286/06
(1 other report)
-
expand
Mackie v Aberdeen City Council [2006] CSIH 36
(1 other report)
-
- Date:
- 1 December 2006
In Mackie v Aberdeen City Council [2006] CSIH 36, the Court of Session holds that there was no TUPE transfer when a private-sector employee working on a project for a local authority was subsequently offered a job in-house, despite a letter from the local authority indicating that a transfer had taken place.
-
expand disabled
Nicholas v Tina Grant t/a Sandancers Cafe EAT/0198/06 (0 other reports)
-
expand
Print Factory (London) 1991 Ltd v Millam [2006] IRLR 923 EAT
(1 other report)
-
- Date:
- 17 November 2006
In The Print Factory (London) 1991 Ltd v Millam EAT/0253/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that a TUPE transfer could not be inferred from the fact that, after an acquisition of shares, the holding company exercised management control of the subsidiary.
-
expand
Sweetin v Coral Racing [2006] IRLR 252 EAT
(3 other reports)
-
- Date:
- 7 April 2006
In Sweetin v Coral Racing, the EAT holds that awards of compensation for a failure to inform and consult about staff transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations should be penal and not compensatory.
-
- Date:
- 1 April 2006
Joe Glavina, of Addleshaw Goddard outlines the latest legal rulings and explains what you need to do to avoid tribunals.
-
- Date:
- 14 February 2006
Awards of compensation for a failure to inform and consult about staff transfers under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) should be penal and not compensatory, according to the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Sweetin v Coral Racing.
-
expand disabled
Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co KG [2006] IRLR 400 ECJ (0 other reports)
This article looks at some of the important judgments in the
area of the transfer of undertakings over the past year.
View the full article today
Register to read this article
Already an XpertHR user?
Log in