Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Case lawEmployment lawTUPE

G4S Justice Services (UK) Limited v Anstey and others

by Personnel Today 30 May 2006
by Personnel Today 30 May 2006

Dismissals and TUPE transfers

G4S Justice Services (UK) Limited v Anstey and others,
30 March 2006, EAT website

Background

Mr Anstey was assigned to a specific contract until his summary dismissal for alleged misconduct, against which he appealed as his contract allowed. Prior to the appeal hearing, however, his employer lost the contract to another company. Neither the old nor prospective ‘new’ employer could agree on who should then hear his appeal, but finally, his old employer agreed to do so.

Anstey’s appeal was upheld, but by that time, he was unable to be re-instated by his old employer, since it no longer operated the contract to which he had been assigned, and the new company refused to engage him. Anstey brought an unfair dismissal claim against both companies.

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) ensure that in the event of a business sale, employees engaged “immediately before the transfer” are protected; their contracts of employment transfer to the acquiring business.

These regulations also cover employees who would have transferred employment had they not been unfairly dismissed pre-transfer. In this case, the acquiring business argued that Anstey was dismissed and, therefore, was not an employee at the time of transfer.

The tribunal, however, disagreed and decided that, although he was technically ‘dismissed’ at the time of transfer, his subsequent successful appeal against dismissal meant that the dismissal was set aside and Anstey continued in employment. This in turn meant that he transferred employment under TUPE.

Appeal

The EAT considered whether an employee, dismissed prior to transfer but whose appeal is yet to be heard, is in fact ’employed’ in the transferred business for the purposes of TUPE. The EAT found Anstey’s successful appeal expunged his original dismissal, and he should have been treated as having been employed up until the transfer date and accordingly transferred. It made no difference that his appeal was not heard before the transfer date.

Comment

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Since Anstey’s right of appeal existed in his contract of employment, his employment was found to be preserved until that right had been executed, even though, in the meantime, the contract to which he was assigned was lost.

The principle here appears to have been that, had the appeal been heard before the transfer date, Anstey would have been employed immediately before the transfer. It would be unreasonable to penalise him because this did not happen.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Trade and Industry Select Committee to consider allowing ‘class action’ legal cases
next post
Pension reform reassurances fail to convince employers

You may also like

Zero-hours workers’ rights to be extended from beyond...

8 May 2025

Employment tribunal backlog up 23% in a year

7 May 2025

Ministers urged to outlaw misuse of NDAs

7 May 2025

‘Unacceptable to question integrity’ of Supreme Court judgment

2 May 2025

Employment Rights Bill must be tightened to protect...

1 May 2025

Lords criticise ‘opaque’, ‘on-the-hoof’ Employment Rights Bill

30 Apr 2025

Retail HRDs say Employment Rights Bill will have...

29 Apr 2025

Trans ex-judge to appeal Supreme Court biological sex...

29 Apr 2025

EHRC: Interim update on single-sex spaces draws criticism

28 Apr 2025

CIPD: Employment Rights Bill timetable needs clarity

25 Apr 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+