Harris v Bulmas Plastics Ltd & Anor [1996] UKEAT 418_95_0502 (5 February 1996)

Harris v Bulmas Plastics Ltd & Anor [1996] UKEAT 418_95_0502 (5 February 1996)

The dismissal of the appellant was part of a plan to reduce the workforce for economic reasons, which entailed changes in the workforce as required by Regulation 8(2) of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1981; therefore, the dismissal was not unfair under the Regulations.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] UKEAT 418_95_0502
Parties
Appellant: Mr William Harris; 1st Respondents: Administrative Receivers of Bulmas Plastics Ltd; 2nd Respondents: Fourfold Precision Tool Co Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Employee's Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision (unfair Dismissal) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Transfer of Undertakings, Redundancy, Economic Dismissal
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Transfer of Undertakings Redundancy Economic 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr William Harris

Appellant

Administrative Receivers of Bulmas Plastics Ltd

1st Respondents

Fourfold Precision Tool Co Ltd

2nd Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employee's Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision (unfair Dismissal) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the appellant was unfair under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1981, Regulation 8
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal was for an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal of the appellant was part of a plan to reduce the workforce for economic reasons, which entailed changes in the workforce as required by Regulation 8(2) of the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations 1981; therefore, the dismissal was not unfair under the Regulations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed