Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd & Ors [2009] UKEAT 0286_08_2406 (24 June 2009)

Metropolitan Resources Ltd v Churchill Dulwich Ltd & Ors [2009] UKEAT 0286_08_2406 (24 June 2009)

The Tribunal correctly applied the statutory test for service provision change under Regulation 3(1)(b) of TUPE 2006, focusing on whether the activities carried out by the alleged transferee were fundamentally or essentially the same as those carried out by the alleged transferor. The Tribunal's factual findings...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UKEAT 0286_08_2406
Parties
Appellant: Metropolitan Resource Limited; First Respondent: Claimants (led by Mr Cambridge); Second Respondent: Churchill Dulwich Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings, Service Provision Change, TUPE 2006, Unfair Dismissal, Wrongful Dismissal
Employment Law Transfer of Undertakings Service Provision Change TUPE 2006 Unfair Dismissal Wrongful Dismissal

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metropolitan Resource Limited

Appellant

Claimants (led by Mr Cambridge)

First Respondent

Churchill Dulwich Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a relevant transfer under Regulation 3(1)(b) of TUPE 2006
  2. 2 Whether the activities carried out by the alleged transferee were fundamentally or essentially the same as those carried out by the alleged transferor
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal applied the correct legal test for service provision change

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal correctly applied the statutory test for service provision change under Regulation 3(1)(b) of TUPE 2006, focusing on whether the activities carried out by the alleged transferee were fundamentally or essentially the same as those carried out by the alleged transferor. The Tribunal's factual findings were permissible and not perverse, and the differences relied upon by the appellant did not negate the existence of a relevant transfer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal's decision that there was a relevant transfer under Regulation 3(1)(b) of TUPE 2006 stands.