EAT Practice and Procedure: Preliminary issues
Claim for unfair dismissal and for a protective award for failure to consult re: TUPE transfer in 2005. Neither Respondent was a UK company. Respondents’ case was that there was no relevant transfer under TUPE regulations. Although initially they also challenged jurisdiction under reg.19 of the ET Regulations, they conceded jurisdiction in that respect at a PHR. Question arose as to whether they had also conceded that TUPE applied. Tribunal apparently found that they had not and that even if they had done, that would not rule out the possibility of it determining that it did not if, for instance, it emerged in evidence that the transferring employer was not situated in the United Kingdom immediately before the transfer. The issue, accordingly, remained live. The Claimant appealed, arguing that the Tribunal should not have allowed a concession to be withdrawn. Appeal dismissed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal: the point taken on appeal proceeded on a misconception as to the different nature of the jurisdiction conferred on Employment Tribunals under reg. 19 and a Tribunal’s jurisdiction to afford a remedy under the TUPE regulations.
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0040 – 07 – 0603
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Secretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.267951