John McMullen examines the EAT’s literal approach to the concept of service provision change under reg 3(1)(b) of TUPE
In McCarrick v Hunter [2012] EWCA Civ 1399, McCarrick was employed in the provision of property services to a property company, the managing director of which was Hunter. However, the lender on the properties appointed Law of Property Act Receivers who thereafter assumed control of the properties and appointed a new property services company, King Sturge. McCarrick did not become employed by King Sturge, but by Hunter directly. He carried out property management services, assisting King Sturge. McCarrick was then dismissed by Hunter and he brought a claim for unfair dismissal. To do so, however, he had to show his employment was continuous between his respective employers.
He argued there was a SPC under reg 3(1)(b) of TUPE. The employment tribunal upheld his claim, but the EAT reversed it. Regulation 3(1)(b)(ii) provides that a SPC occurs where activities cease to be carried out on a client’s behalf and are, instead, carried out by a subsequent contractor on the client’s behalf. That, said the EAT, had
