Hare Wines Ltd v Kaur & Anor [2017] UKEAT 0131_17_1710 (17 October 2017)

Hare Wines Ltd v Kaur & Anor [2017] UKEAT 0131_17_1710 (17 October 2017)

The Tribunal was entitled to find that the principal reason for the Claimant's dismissal was the transfer, given the close proximity to the transfer, ongoing relationship difficulties not previously acted upon, and the transferee's desire not to take the Claimant. The dismissal was therefore automatically unfair under TUPE regulation 7.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0131_17_1710
Parties
First Respondent: H&W Wholesale Ltd; Second Respondent: Hare Wines Ltd; Appellant: Claimant
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings, Unfair Dismissal, TUPE Objection
Employment Law Transfer of Undertakings Unfair Dismissal TUPE Objection

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H&W Wholesale Ltd

First Respondent

Hare Wines Ltd

Second Respondent

Claimant

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the principal reason for the Claimant's dismissal the transfer of the business under TUPE?
  2. 2 Did the Claimant object to the transfer under regulation 4(7) TUPE?
  3. 3 Was the dismissal automatically unfair under regulation 7 TUPE?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find that the principal reason for the Claimant's dismissal was the transfer, given the close proximity to the transfer, ongoing relationship difficulties not previously acted upon, and the transferee's desire not to take the Claimant. The dismissal was therefore automatically unfair under TUPE regulation 7.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The finding that the reason for dismissal was the transfer is upheld.
  • No further orders issued.