header-logo header-logo

Contemplating relocation

Sinclair Cramsie & Clare Harrington unravel the complexities of relocating TUPE transferees

It is not uncommon for a business to take over a local competitor in order to acquire the competitor’s business and workforce but not its premises. The outcome in the case of Tapere v South London and Maudsley NHS Trust ET Case No. 2329562/2007 has left many employers questioning their approach in situations where they require a newly-acquired business and workforce to move—on some occasions, a relatively modest distance. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246) (TUPE) provide a clear route for employees unwilling to make such a move to claim automatic unfair dismissal. The opportunities for successfully defending such a claim appear to be limited. 

Contract transfer

Ms Tapere was employed by Lewisham Primary Care Trust, based at Burgess Park in Camberwell. Her contract of employment was transferred by virtue of TUPE to the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. It was anticipated, both by the transferee and transferor, that the claimant’s place of work would transfer to Bethlem Hospital in Beckenham as soon

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll