This case concerns a football club which had been owned by the appellant. In January 2010 the appellant went into administration and the administrator sought to sell the club as a going concern. The Appellant signed a sale purchase agreement, which was held in escrow pending an agreement for the sale of the club’s stadium. The administrator claimed that unless staff costs were reduced the club would have to be liquidated. In May the Administrator dismissed 29 non-playing members of staff including the Claimant. In June, the sale of the club to the appellant was agreed. The question which arose was whether or not the dismissal of the Claimant was unfair under TUPE regulation seven.

The issue, in this case, was whether or not the reason for the dismissals amounted to an economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason as per regulation 7(b) of TUPE. The Tribunal concluded, in this instance, that it did amount to an ETO reason. The immediate needs of the organisation outweighed any longer-term desire to transfer the club.

According to the Court of Appeal, liability for Unfair Dismissal should not transfer to an end purchaser. The terminations, in this case, were deemed to be for ETO reasons. The immediate needs of the organisation outweighed any longer-term desire to transfer the club. http://bit.ly/1bxoyq9