BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Paterson (Transfer of Undertakings : Service Provision Change) [2012] UKEAT 0003_12_2706 (27 June 2012)

BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Paterson (Transfer of Undertakings : Service Provision Change) [2012] UKEAT 0003_12_2706 (27 June 2012)

There was a material procedural irregularity because the Tribunal raised and decided the issue of a service provision change in April 2011 without giving BAE a proper opportunity to present evidence on that issue, thereby denying procedural fairness.

Citation
[2012] UKEAT 0003_12_2706
Parties
Appellant: BAE Systems Ltd; Respondent: Claimant (unnamed)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
27 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Tribunal decision set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a new Tribunal panel.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings (tupe), Service Provision Change, Procedural Fairness, Amendment of Claim, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Transfer of Undertakings (tupe) Service Provision Change Procedural Fairness Amendment of Claim Employment Tribunal Procedure

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BAE Systems Ltd

Appellant

Claimant (unnamed)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in considering a service provision change in April 2011 when the parties' focus was on June 2010
  2. 2 Whether there was a procedural irregularity due to lack of opportunity to present evidence on the April 2011 issue
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal properly identified the relevant 'activities' under TUPE 2006

Ratio Decidendi

There was a material procedural irregularity because the Tribunal raised and decided the issue of a service provision change in April 2011 without giving BAE a proper opportunity to present evidence on that issue, thereby denying procedural fairness.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Tribunal decision set aside; case remitted for rehearing before a new Tribunal panel.

Orders

  • Decision between Claimant and BAE set aside
  • Claimant given 42 days to apply to amend claim