Lorne Stewart Plc v Hyde & Ors (Transfer of Undertakings : Service Provision Change) [2013] UKEAT 0408_12_0110 (1 October 2013)

Lorne Stewart Plc v Hyde & Ors (Transfer of Undertakings : Service Provision Change) [2013] UKEAT 0408_12_0110 (1 October 2013)

It is not necessary for the work carried out by the claimants to be contractually guaranteed to the contractor for TUPE to apply; the relevant question is whether the activities actually carried out before the service provision change were fundamentally or essentially the same as those carried out after, and whether the claimants were assigned to the organised grouping of employees carrying out those activities. The Employment Judge made sufficient findings of fact to support the conclusion that the claimants' employment transferred to the appellant under TUPE.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0408_12_0110
Parties
Appellant: Lorne Stewart PLC; First Respondent / Claimant: Mr Hyde; Second Respondent / Claimant: Mr Crowley; Third Respondent / First Respondent Below: Planned Maintenance Engineering Ltd (trading as Carillion Planned Maintenance)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings (tupe), Service Provision Change, Unfair Dismissal
Employment Law Transfer of Undertakings (tupe) Service Provision Change 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lorne Stewart PLC

Appellant

Mr Hyde

First Respondent / Claimant

Mr Crowley

Second Respondent / Claimant

Planned Maintenance Engineering Ltd (trading as Carillion Planned Maintenance)

Third Respondent / First Respondent Below

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' employment transferred to the appellant under TUPE due to a service provision change
  2. 2 Whether the activities carried out by the claimants were included in the transferred activities under the new contract
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Judge made sufficient findings of fact regarding the activities and assignment of the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

It is not necessary for the work carried out by the claimants to be contractually guaranteed to the contractor for TUPE to apply; the relevant question is whether the activities actually carried out before the service provision change were fundamentally or essentially the same as those carried out after, and whether the claimants were assigned to the organised grouping of employees carrying out those activities. The Employment Judge made sufficient findings of fact to support the conclusion that the claimants' employment transferred to the appellant under TUPE.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.