Turner v Orrmac Coatings Ltd [1996] UKEAT 1370_95_1410 (14 October 1996)

Turner v Orrmac Coatings Ltd [1996] UKEAT 1370_95_1410 (14 October 1996)

The three-week gap between 14 May and 8 June constituted a break in service, destroying continuity and precluding an unfair dismissal claim; the dismissal was by reason of redundancy, not transfer.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] UKEAT 1370_95_1410
Parties
Former Employer: Universal Metal Sprayers Ltd; Purchaser/employer: Munroe & Miller Ltd; Current Employer: Respondents; Employee/claimant: Appellant
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Industrial Tribunal's Preliminary Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Redundancy, Continuity of Employment, Transfer of Undertakings
Employment Law Unfair Dismissal Redundancy Continuity of Employment Transfer of Undertakings

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Universal Metal Sprayers Ltd

Former Employer

Munroe & Miller Ltd

Purchaser/employer

Respondents

Current Employer

Appellant

Employee/claimant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Industrial Tribunal's Preliminary Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a three-week gap in employment breaks continuity of service for unfair dismissal claims
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal on 14 May was by reason of redundancy or transfer
  3. 3 Whether statutory notice extends continuity over the transfer period

Ratio Decidendi

The three-week gap between 14 May and 8 June constituted a break in service, destroying continuity and precluding an unfair dismissal claim; the dismissal was by reason of redundancy, not transfer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No jurisdiction to deal with the Appellant's claim
  • Industrial Tribunal's preliminary decision affirmed