Telenor Business Solutions Ltd v.Mackenzie & Anor [2003] UKEAT 0016_03_2708 (27 August 2003)

Telenor Business Solutions Ltd v.Mackenzie & Anor [2003] UKEAT 0016_03_2708 (27 August 2003)

The Tribunal was entitled to find that an identifiable economic entity existed and retained its identity after the change of contractor, and that a relevant transfer under TUPE occurred. The Tribunal did not misdirect itself in law or fact, and its decision should not be interfered with.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0016_03_2708
Parties
Appellant: AMICUS (AEEU); First Respondent: Synstar; Second Respondent: Nextra
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
27 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal refused
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings, TUPE Regulations, Unfair Dismissal, Economic Entity, Change of Contractor
Employment Law Labour Law Transfer of Undertakings TUPE Regulations Unfair Dismissal Economic Entity Change of Contractor

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMICUS (AEEU)

Appellant

Synstar

First Respondent

Nextra

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination and retendering of a computer services contract constituted a relevant transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE)
  2. 2 Whether an identifiable economic entity existed and retained its identity after the change of contractor
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to take on the applicant constituted an automatically unfair dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find that an identifiable economic entity existed and retained its identity after the change of contractor, and that a relevant transfer under TUPE occurred. The Tribunal did not misdirect itself in law or fact, and its decision should not be interfered with.

Court Disposition

appeal refused