Ejiofor (t/a Mitchell & Co Solicitors) v Sullivan & Ors (Transfer of Undertakings : Transfer) [2014] UKEAT 0268_13_2205 (22 May 2014)

Ejiofor (t/a Mitchell & Co Solicitors) v Sullivan & Ors (Transfer of Undertakings : Transfer) [2014] UKEAT 0268_13_2205 (22 May 2014)

The solicitors' practice constituted an identifiable economic entity capable of transfer under TUPE; the business was not carried on for an unlawful purpose per se, and thus TUPE applied. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to refuse the adjournment as fairness did not require further enquiry into the appellant's illness given the circumstances.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0268_13_2205
Parties
Appellant: Mr Ejiofor trading as Mitchell & Co; Claimant: Ms Sullivan; Third Respondent: Mrs Aaronson; Second Respondent: Mr Aaronson
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision and Subsequent Remedy Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
TUPE Transfer, Unfair Dismissal, Adjournment Discretion, Remedies
Employment Law TUPE Transfer Unfair Dismissal Adjournment Discretion Remedies

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Ejiofor trading as Mitchell & Co

Appellant

Ms Sullivan

Claimant

Mrs Aaronson

Third Respondent

Mr Aaronson

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision and Subsequent Remedy Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a TUPE transfer of a solicitors' practice
  2. 2 Whether the business was unlawful and thus incapable of transfer under TUPE
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing an adjournment at the remedies hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The solicitors' practice constituted an identifiable economic entity capable of transfer under TUPE; the business was not carried on for an unlawful purpose per se, and thus TUPE applied. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to refuse the adjournment as fairness did not require further enquiry into the appellant's illness given the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • TUPE transfer upheld
  • Remedies hearing decision upheld