ALHCO Group Ltd v Griffin & Ors (Transfer of Undertakings : Service Provision Change) [2014] UKEAT 0007_14_1007 (10 July 2014)

ALHCO Group Ltd v Griffin & Ors (Transfer of Undertakings : Service Provision Change) [2014] UKEAT 0007_14_1007 (10 July 2014)

The Employment Judge was entitled to find that the relevant activities (repeat servicing and repair installation) transferred to the new contractor, as the activities carried out by ALHCO were fundamentally or essentially the same as those previously carried out by MJT. However, the Judge failed to provide adequate reasons for concluding that the claimants were assigned to an organised grouping, necessitating remittal for further determination on that point.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0007_14_1007
Parties
Appellant: ALHCO Group Ltd; First Respondent: Claimants (eight former MJT employees); Second Respondent: MJT Mechanical Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment, Remittal Ordered
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, remitted for further determination
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings, Service Provision Change, TUPE Regulations, Unfair Dismissal
Employment Law Transfer of Undertakings Service Provision Change TUPE Regulations Unfair Dismissal

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ALHCO Group Ltd

Appellant

Claimants (eight former MJT employees)

First Respondent

MJT Mechanical Services Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment, Remittal Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a service provision change under TUPE 2006 Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the relevant employees were assigned to an organised grouping for the purposes of TUPE

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge was entitled to find that the relevant activities (repeat servicing and repair installation) transferred to the new contractor, as the activities carried out by ALHCO were fundamentally or essentially the same as those previously carried out by MJT. However, the Judge failed to provide adequate reasons for concluding that the claimants were assigned to an organised grouping, necessitating remittal for further determination on that point.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, remitted for further determination

Orders

  • Appeal on ground 1 (activities) dismissed
  • Appeal on ground 2 (organised grouping) allowed