Betts & Ors v Brintel Helicopters Ltd & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 1340 (26 March 1997)

Betts & Ors v Brintel Helicopters Ltd & Anor [1997] EWCA Civ 1340 (26 March 1997)

There was no transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the 1981 Regulations or Directive 77/187/EEC because KLM did not take over Brintel's assets or a major part of its workforce, and the economic entity did not retain its identity in the hands of KLM.

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 1340
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents: Betts and Others; First Defendants: Brintel Helicopters Ltd; Second Defendants/appellants: KLM ERA Helicopters (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 March 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings, Employee Rights, TUPE Regulations, Interpretation of EU Directives, Second Generation Contracting Out
Employment Law European Union Law Transfer of Undertakings Employee Rights TUPE Regulations Interpretation of EU Directives Second Generation Contracting Out

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Betts and Others

Plaintiffs/respondents

Brintel Helicopters Ltd

First Defendants

KLM ERA Helicopters (UK) Ltd

Second Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Brintel's Beccles operation constituted an 'undertaking' under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE)
  2. 2 Whether there was a transfer of an undertaking so that it retained its identity in the hands of KLM under TUPE and Directive 77/187/EEC

Ratio Decidendi

There was no transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of the 1981 Regulations or Directive 77/187/EEC because KLM did not take over Brintel's assets or a major part of its workforce, and the economic entity did not retain its identity in the hands of KLM.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declarations granted to plaintiffs by the trial judge set aside
  • No injunction granted