header-logo header-logo

19 November 2013
Issue: 7585 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Crystal Palace scores on TUPE

Major case clarifies circumstances in which a company in administration may dimiss staff

An employment dispute at Crystal Palace Football Club has provided an important Court of Appeal clarification on TUPE.

Crystal Palace FC Limited and Another v Kavanagh and Others [2013] EWCA Civ 1410, concerned the dismissal of the four appellants and 25 others in 2010 when the club was in administration and suffering financial woes. The administrator thought he would be more likely to sell the club as a going concern with a skeleton staff in place. The club was sold to CPFC Ltd and went on to achieve success, starting the 2013-2014 season in the Premier League.

Legal argument centred on whether the TUPE Regulations (Transfer of Undertaking Regulations 2006) were transferred to CPFC or whether the employees were dismissed for economic, technical or organisational reasons (ETO). The Court of Appeal held the latter applied since the administrator did not have enough funds to pay the employees.

David Hinchliffe, head of sports at Walker Morris, which advised CPFC, says: “This is a major case and will clarify the circumstances in which a company in administration may dismiss staff without incurring a liability for unfair dismissal.  

“The case should have a positive impact on the rescue culture.”

Irwin Mitchell associate Ami Naru says: “The employees’ dismissals were designed to ensure that costs were reduced to enable the club to continue to trade—and not therefore simply to make it a more attractive proposition for a purchaser.

"This should be welcome news for administrators, as well as for potential purchasers of distressed businesses.”

Issue: 7585 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll