ICAP Management Services Ltd v Berry & Anor [2017] EWHC 1321 (QB) (06 June 2017)

ICAP Management Services Ltd v Berry & Anor [2017] EWHC 1321 (QB) (06 June 2017)

There was no transfer of an economic entity within the meaning of TUPE because there was no change in employer; IMSL remained Mr Berry's employer before and after the share sale. The sale was a share sale, not a business transfer. Therefore, TUPE did not apply, Mr Berry's employment did not terminate under TUPE, and the claimant was entitled to enforce the garden leave provision until the end of the notice period.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1321
Parties
Claimant: ICAP Management Services Limited; First Defendant: Dean Berry; Second Defendant: BGC Services (Holdings) LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (employment) / Post Interim Injunction, Expedited Trial, Judgment
Outcome
Claimant succeeds; injunction continued until 21 July 2017.
Legal Topics
TUPE (transfer of Undertakings), Garden Leave, Restrictive Covenants, Injunctions, Employee Rights, Business Transfers
Employment Law Contract Law TUPE (transfer of Undertakings) Garden Leave Restrictive Covenants Injunctions Employee Rights Business Transfers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ICAP Management Services Limited

Claimant

Dean Berry

First Defendant

BGC Services (Holdings) LLP

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (employment) / Post Interim Injunction, Expedited Trial, Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) applied to the sale of IGBB and the employment of Mr Berry
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to enforce garden leave against Mr Berry
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant induced breach of contract and whether injunctive relief should be granted against it

Ratio Decidendi

There was no transfer of an economic entity within the meaning of TUPE because there was no change in employer; IMSL remained Mr Berry's employer before and after the share sale. The sale was a share sale, not a business transfer. Therefore, TUPE did not apply, Mr Berry's employment did not terminate under TUPE, and the claimant was entitled to enforce the garden leave provision until the end of the notice period.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds; injunction continued until 21 July 2017.

Orders

  • Interim injunctions continued until 21 July 2017.
  • Costs consequences to be determined, with a preliminary view that excessive costs for skeleton arguments and documentation may be disallowed.