Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB & Anor [2007] UKEAT 0171_07_1212 (12 December 2007)
TUPE 2006 applies to transfers of undertakings that are situated in the UK immediately before the transfer, even if the transferee is based outside the UK or EU. The absence of a restriction on the transferee's location in the regulations, and the clear wording of Regulation 3(1)(a), indicate that Parliament intended TUPE to apply in such circumstances. The protective purpose of TUPE and the ARD would be undermined if employers could avoid obligations by transferring businesses abroad. Therefore, the application to strike out the claim against the transferee (Holis) is refused.
- Citation
- [2007] UKEAT 0171_07_1212
- Parties
- Appellant: Holis; 1st Respondent: GMB; 2nd Respondent: Newell Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 12 December 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim at Pre Hearing Review
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Undertakings (tupe), Collective Redundancy Consultation, Extra Territorial Application of UK Law, 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.
Parties
Holis
Appellant
GMB
1st Respondent
Newell Ltd
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim at Pre Hearing Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Does TUPE 2006 apply to a transfer of a business entity from the UK to a non-EU country?
- 2 Are employees entitled to consultation and information rights under TUPE and TULRCA when the transferee is based outside the UK?
- 3 Does the territorial scope of TUPE extend to protect UK-based employees when the business is transferred abroad?
Ratio Decidendi
TUPE 2006 applies to transfers of undertakings that are situated in the UK immediately before the transfer, even if the transferee is based outside the UK or EU. The absence of a restriction on the transferee's location in the regulations, and the clear wording of Regulation 3(1)(a), indicate that Parliament intended TUPE to apply in such circumstances. The protective purpose of TUPE and the ARD would be undermined if employers could avoid obligations by transferring businesses abroad. Therefore, the application to strike out the claim against the transferee (Holis) is refused.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application to strike out the claim against the second respondent (Holis) is refused and dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment