Environmental Services Ltd v Dyke & Anor [1997] UKEAT 93_96_1003 (10 March 1997)

Environmental Services Ltd v Dyke & Anor [1997] UKEAT 93_96_1003 (10 March 1997)

Regulation 5 of the 1981 Regulations operates as a statutory novation, automatically transferring the employment contract to the transferee regardless of whether the employee knows the transferee's identity. Mr Dyke was assigned to the part of the undertaking transferred, so his contract transferred to Mr McBride. The dismissal by MRS was for a reason connected with the transfer and is automatically unfair under Regulation 8(1), but liability attaches only to the transferee, not the transferor.

Citation
[1997] UKEAT 93_96_1003
Parties
Appellant: MRS Environmental Services Ltd; Applicant: Mr Dyke; 2nd Respondent: Mr McBride
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 March 1997
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; liability for unfair dismissal attaches to the transferee (Mr McBride) alone.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings, Unfair Dismissal, Statutory Novation, Employee Rights, Automatic Transfer of Contracts

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MRS Environmental Services Ltd

Appellant

Mr Dyke

Applicant

Mr McBride

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision

  1. 1 Whether Mr Dyke was assigned to the part of the undertaking transferred under the 1981 Regulations
  2. 2 Whether knowledge of the transferee's identity is required for automatic transfer of employment contract under Regulation 5
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal was automatically unfair under Regulation 8(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Regulation 5 of the 1981 Regulations operates as a statutory novation, automatically transferring the employment contract to the transferee regardless of whether the employee knows the transferee's identity. Mr Dyke was assigned to the part of the undertaking transferred, so his contract transferred to Mr McBride. The dismissal by MRS was for a reason connected with the transfer and is automatically unfair under Regulation 8(1), but liability attaches only to the transferee, not the transferor.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; liability for unfair dismissal attaches to the transferee (Mr McBride) alone.

Orders

  • Case remitted to the same tribunal to consider remedies against Mr McBride alone.