Longden & Anor v Ferrari Ltd & Anor [1993] UKEAT 529_92_2211 (22 November 1993)

Longden & Anor v Ferrari Ltd & Anor [1993] UKEAT 529_92_2211 (22 November 1993)

The transfer of Ferrari Ltd's undertaking to Kennedy International Ltd was effected by a single agreement on 10 April 1991, not by a series of two or more transactions. The appellants were not employed immediately before the transfer and were dismissed for reasons unrelated to the transfer, namely financial constraints and pressure from the bank. Therefore, the claims for unfair dismissal under the Regulations fail.

Citation
[1993] UKEAT 529_92_2211
Parties
Appellant: Mrs R E Longden; Appellant: Mr J N Paisley; 1st Respondent: Ferrari Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Kennedy International Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 November 1993
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings, Unfair Dismissal, Receivership, Employee Rights, Interpretation of TUPE Regulations

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs R E Longden

Appellant

Mr J N Paisley

Appellant

Ferrari Ltd

1st Respondent

Kennedy International Ltd

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision

  1. 1 Whether the transfer of Ferrari Ltd's undertaking to Kennedy International Ltd was effected by a series of two or more transactions under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (TUPE)
  2. 2 Whether the appellants were unfairly dismissed for a reason connected with the transfer under Regulation 8(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The transfer of Ferrari Ltd's undertaking to Kennedy International Ltd was effected by a single agreement on 10 April 1991, not by a series of two or more transactions. The appellants were not employed immediately before the transfer and were dismissed for reasons unrelated to the transfer, namely financial constraints and pressure from the bank. Therefore, the claims for unfair dismissal under the Regulations fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed