Thompson v. SCS Consulting Ltd & Ors [2001] UKEAT 34_00_0309 (3 September 2001)

Thompson v. SCS Consulting Ltd & Ors [2001] UKEAT 34_00_0309 (3 September 2001)

The tribunal was entitled to find as a fact that Mr. Thompson was dismissed for an ETO reason—namely, the need to reduce the workforce to ensure the future viability of the business. As such, regulation 8(2) of TUPE applied, regulation 8(1) was excluded, and the extended construction of 'employed immediately before the transfer' under Litster did not apply. Therefore, liability for the dismissal did not transfer to Open Text (UK) Limited.

Citation
[2001] UKEAT 34_00_0309
Parties
Appellant: Mr. Thompson; Respondent: First Respondent (Lava Systems UK Ltd); Respondent: Second Respondent (Lava Systems Ltd); Respondent: Open Text (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings (protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (tupe), Unfair Dismissal, Economic, Technical or Organizational (eto) Reason, Liability of Transferee and Transferor, Protective Award, Consultation Requirements
Employment Law Transfer of Undertakings (protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (tupe) Unfair Dismissal Economic, Technical or Organizational (eto) Reason Liability of Transferee and Transferor Protective Award Consultation Requirements

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Thompson

Appellant

First Respondent (Lava Systems UK Ltd)

Respondent

Second Respondent (Lava Systems Ltd)

Respondent

Open Text (UK) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Thompson's dismissal was for a reason connected with the transfer under TUPE or for an ETO reason
  2. 2 Whether liability for dismissal transferred to Open Text (UK) Limited under TUPE
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal was automatically unfair under regulation 8(1) or excluded by regulation 8(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal was entitled to find as a fact that Mr. Thompson was dismissed for an ETO reason—namely, the need to reduce the workforce to ensure the future viability of the business. As such, regulation 8(2) of TUPE applied, regulation 8(1) was excluded, and the extended construction of 'employed immediately before the transfer' under Litster did not apply. Therefore, liability for the dismissal did not transfer to Open Text (UK) Limited.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claims against Open Text (UK) Limited dismissed