The applicants worked for the first respondent cleaning a certain set of offices. The company lost the contract to the second respondent. They claimed that their had taken place a transfer of undertakings within the regulations. They appealed a decision that what had been transferred was a contractual right rather than an undertaking, misapplying Suzen. They had not found incorrectly there, but had attached weight to the reasons behind the change. That was incorrect, and the decision could not stand.
Her Honour Judge Wakefield
[2001] UKEAT 0426 – 00 – 1705
Bailii
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (1981 No 1794)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Suzen v Zehnacker Gebaudereinigung Krankenhausservice (Judgment) ECJ 11-Mar-1997
A transfer of a contract to provide business services, without the transfer of significant assets was not a transfer of an undertaking within the Directive. Nevertheless the transfer of tangible assets was only one factor among several. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 September 2021; Ref: scu.203863