header-logo header-logo

Court rejects artificial use of TUPE

08 November 2007
Issue: 7296 / Categories: Legal News , TUPE
printer mail-detail

News

The Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) and the acquired rights provisions do not confer additional benefits on employees or improve their situation, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
In Jackson v Computershare Investor Services plc the appeal court confirmed that TUPE does not give a transferred employee access to employment benefits other than those which the employee was entitled to before the transfer of the undertaking.

When Jackson joined Ci in January 1999, there were no terms relating to enhanced redundancy or severance payments in her contract of employment. In June 2004 her employment contract was transferred, under TUPE, to CIS which had an enhanced redundancy scheme. However, this drew a distinction between pre-March 2002 joiners and new entrants after 1 March 2002.

David E Grant, a barrister at Outer Temple Chambers, says the Court of Appeal rejected what it called the attempt to make artificial use of TUPE.
“Although it is unlikely that there will be further attempts to rely upon TUPE in this way,” he says, “the Court of Appeal is due to give judgment in Power v Regent Security Services Ltd on the question of whether an employee can rely upon the terms in his original contract of employment.”

Issue: 7296 / Categories: Legal News , TUPE
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
back-to-top-scroll