Connick Tree Care v S Chapman & Gristwood & Toms [1998] UKEAT 889_97_0603 (6 March 1998)

Connick Tree Care v S Chapman & Gristwood & Toms [1998] UKEAT 889_97_0603 (6 March 1998)

The Tribunal erred in law by misapplying the principles established in Suzen and Betts; no relevant transfer occurred as only one employee was taken on and no assets or organizational functions were transferred.

Citation
[1998] UKEAT 889_97_0603
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Chapman; First Respondent: Gristwood & Toms; Second Respondent: Connick Tree Care
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
06 March 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Tribunal decision reversed; no relevant transfer found.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Undertakings, Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy, TUPE Regulations
Employment Law European Law Transfer of Undertakings Unfair Dismissal Redundancy 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Chapman

Applicant

Gristwood & Toms

First Respondent

Connick Tree Care

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a relevant transfer occurred under TUPE regulations
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was unfairly dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by misapplying the principles established in Suzen and Betts; no relevant transfer occurred as only one employee was taken on and no assets or organizational functions were transferred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Tribunal decision reversed; no relevant transfer found.

Orders

  • Finding of unfair dismissal against Connick set aside.
  • Case remitted to a fresh Industrial Tribunal to determine alternative complaints against G & T.