A farm was sold as a going concern with land and all stock-in-trade.
Held: This was a ‘transfer of a trade, business, or undertaking.’ It was the same business being carried on both before and after the transfer. The same staff were employed. Lord Denning MR considerd the nature of a redundancy payment: ‘As I read the Act, a worker of long standing is now recognised as having an accrued right in his job ; and his right gains in value with the years. So much so that if the job is shut down, he is entitled to compensation for loss of the job – just as a Director gets compensation for loss of office. The director gets a golden handshake. The worker gets a redundancy payment. It is not unemployment pay. I repeat ‘not’. Even if he gets another job straightaway, he nevertheless is entitled to full redundancy payment. It is, in a real sense, compensation for long service.’
Salmon LJ said: ‘Of the many factors to be taken into account in considering whether or not a change in the ownership of a business has occurred, none by itself nor a combination of any of them together is necessarily conclusive. Everything depends on a broad view of all the circumstances of each particular case. In this case, having come to the conclusion that there was ample evidence to support the tribunal’s finding, I would allow the appeal.’
Judges:
Lord Denning MR, Salmon LJ
Citations:
[1969] 2 WLR 310, [1969] 1 All ER 382, [1969] 2 QB 98
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Melon v Hector Powe Ltd HL 6-Nov-1980
Appeals on the ground of perversity will only succeed where it is shown that no reasonable Tribunal, properly directed in law, could have reached the decision made. The court set out the duties and powers of appellate courts in employment law: ‘It . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.402545