March 31, 2014
by Jeffrey
0 comments
This case is concerned with Reg 3(1)(b)(ii) and whether the activities carried on before and after transfer are fundamentally or essentially the same. The interesting feature of the case is that the manner of providing the services after the transfer was radically … Continue reading
March 18, 2014
by Jeffrey
0 comments
This case raises two issues: (i) The approach to the issue of intention in Reg 3(3)(a)(ii): “the client intends that the activities will, following the service provision change, be carried out by the transferee other than in connection with a single specific event … Continue reading
November 14, 2013
by Jeffrey
0 comments
The issue in this case principally concerns the meaning of Reg 3(3) and the intention of the client that activities following the transfer will be carried out by the transferee other than in connection with a single specific event or … Continue reading
October 3, 2013
by Jeffrey
0 comments
This case raises two points on Reg 3(1)(b) Service Provision Changes (SPCs). First, If there is no contractual obligation on the contractor to perform particular work for the client before the transfer but that work is nevertheless undertaken, do the … Continue reading
September 12, 2013
by Jeffrey
0 comments
The Facts From May to October 2009 the employee was employed by DJ under a 6 month fixed term contract to manage premises in the Netherlands for one of DJ’s clients. From October 2009 she took on an associate role for DJ … Continue reading
September 5, 2013
by Jeffrey
0 comments
The Government’s proposals have been published and they not nearly as radical as had been anticipated by some, and feared by others. The big news is that Service Provision changes will remain albeit in a modified form to reflect the development of case law. … Continue reading
July 19, 2013
by Jeffrey
0 comments
This case does not concern any new principle but is another example of an unsuccessful perversity appeal in a Service Provision Change (SPC) case and relates to the issue of whether the same activities were carried on ‘before’ and ‘after’ … Continue reading
June 24, 2013
by Jeffrey
0 comments
This cases raises the same issue that arose in Eddie Stobart Ltd v Moreman and in Argyll Coastal Services v Sterling, namely that there has to be some conscious organisation of a group or team in order to fulfil the requirement of Reg 3(3)(a)(i) that there be … Continue reading
June 17, 2013
by Jeffrey
0 comments
As will be recalled, in Albron Catering BV v FNV Bondgenoten [2011] ICR 373 the ECJ held that the Acquired Rights Directive applied to workers assigned to an undertaking that transferred even though they were not employed by that undertaking before the transfer. The Dutch … Continue reading
May 29, 2013
by Jeffrey
0 comments
Stobart operated a logistics depot which it used to store processed and unprocessed meat which it would then deliver to suppliers. In 2009 when it closed the depot there were two customers F and V. Stobart believed the work it … Continue reading