Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd & Anor v Wilcox & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1240 (20 July 2006)

Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd & Anor v Wilcox & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1240 (20 July 2006)

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that there was a transfer of an economic entity under TUPE 1991 in relation to the RASP contract, as the same work was carried out by substantially the same workforce with the same objectives, and the non-transfer of leased equipment was not fatal to the existence of a transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal did not err in law in upholding those findings, and the Employment Tribunal's reasoning was sufficient to meet legal requirements.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1240
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd; Claimant/applicant: Interserve Industrial Services Ltd; Defendants/respondents: Mr C Wilcox & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings (protection of Employment) Regulations 1991 (tupe), Employment Tribunal Procedure, Appeals on Questions of Law, Economic Entity Transfer, Employee Rights on Business Transfer
Employment Law Labour Law Transfer of Undertakings (protection of Employment) Regulations 1991 (tupe) Employment Tribunal Procedure Appeals on Questions of Law Economic Entity Transfer Employee Rights on Business Transfer

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balfour Beatty Power Networks Ltd

Claimant/applicant

Interserve Industrial Services Ltd

Claimant/applicant

Mr C Wilcox & Ors

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in finding a transfer of an economic entity under TUPE 1991 in the context of the RASP contract
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in upholding the Employment Tribunal's findings
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal's reasoning and findings met the requirements of rule 30(5) of the 2004 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that there was a transfer of an economic entity under TUPE 1991 in relation to the RASP contract, as the same work was carried out by substantially the same workforce with the same objectives, and the non-transfer of leased equipment was not fatal to the existence of a transfer. The Employment Appeal Tribunal did not err in law in upholding those findings, and the Employment Tribunal's reasoning was sufficient to meet legal requirements.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed