EAT The employees appealed against a finding that there had been no transfer of an undertaking when their service business had been sold and they had been dismissed.
Held: The appeal failed. No assets, physical or otherwise had been transferred: ‘we can see no reason to doubt the Tribunal’s conclusion that there was no transfer. The operation was plainly labour-intensive. No assets at all were transferred, save for the right to use some of the client’s facilities, and no doubt the right to enter the client’s premises, which, as discussed above, amounts to nothing more than the recognition that the same operation is going to be carried out at the same premises. In those circumstances, given that the entity consisted entirely or almost entirely of the workforce dedicated to the carrying out of a single contract which terminated at the instance of ADI, it is clear that when none of that workforce transferred, it is at the very least open to the Employment Tribunal to have found, by reference to any of the tests or any of the guidelines set out above, that there was no transfer.’
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Burton
Citations:
EAT/11/99, [2000] EAT 11 – 99 – 1804
Links:
Statutes:
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 3, Council Directive 77/187 1(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – ADI (UK) Ltd v Willer and others EAT 8-Mar-1999
The appeal is to go ahead to a full inter partes hearing. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – ADI (UK) Limited v Firm Security Group Limited CA 22-Jun-2001
ADI appealed against a decision that, when they took over a services contract, there had been a transfer within the Regulations.
Held: Though no assets tangible or otherwise, had been transferred, this was a contract to provide services at a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.171839
