Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd: CA 30 Jul 2009

The employer was in financial difficulties. A new company was formed by a customer to acquire its assets, and the employees, including the claimant were taken on by the new company. The claimant was dismissed within a year after. On claiming unfair dismissal, the new company said that he had no continuity of employment from his former company, and therefore no vested right not to be unfairly dismissed. The defendant said that because the former company went into insolvent administration, the employment had not, under reg 8(7), been transferred. A new question was whether section 218 preserved the claim.
Held: It was open to the court to look at the new point. Since the new company had, by concession, acquired the business of the company, under section 218(2), the two periods of employment were to be added together giving the claimant sufficient total time to claim unfair dismissal. The question of the insolvency did not in the event arise.
Rix, Smith, Moses LJJ
[2009] EWCA Civ 1094, [2010] BCC 263, [2010] IRLR 82
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 8(7), Employment Rights Act 1996 218, Directive 2001/23/EC (the Consolidated Acquired Rights Directive)
England and Wales
Appeal FromOakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd EAT 9-Jan-2009
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal
The Claimant was found to have been unfairly dismissed. The case was remitted to a different Tribunal in the light of the decision of the Employment Tribunal . .
CitedGlennie v Independent Magazines (UK) Limited CA 17-Jun-1999
A party is under a duty to present his entire case at the first hearing in the Employment Tribunal. Where a claimant’s representative had decided to adopt a particular position in law when making representations to the original industrial tribunal, . .
CitedWilson v Liverpool Corporation CA 1971
The claimants owned 74 acres of an area of 391 acres in Liverpool which the Corporation wanted to acquire for residential development. The authority acquired the land by agreement and made a compulsory purchase order in respect of the remainder.
CitedKumchyk v Derby County Council EAT 1978
The appellant sought to advance an argument that a certain term was implied into the contract of employment which, for its consideration, would have required consideration of a factual framework which had not been explored in evidence.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.377304