This case involved an appeal from the decision on a preliminary issue in a claim by the Claimant for unfair dismissal and a statutory redundancy payment. The issue for determination was whether there had been a TUPE transfer of the Claimant's employment from the First Respondent (the Appellant) to the Second Respondent (the Respondent).

The transfer in question was said to have occurred by reason of a service provision change, for which provision is made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations 2006 (reg 3(1)(b); in this case, (iii)). The Employment Judge found that the Claimant had been employed in 1986 as a site coordinator at Harwell. However, the duties he performed changed over time; whereas only one of the initial duties he performed related to official car services, that duty mutated into being the principal or sole function of the Claimant. On appeal, the issue for consideration was whether the Judge was entitled to come to the conclusion he did.

In dismissing the appeal, the EAT ruled that a Judge was entitled to hold there had been no service provision change where a centralised taxi booking administration service was taken back in-house by the client of the service and no longer thereafter operated as a centralised service. The element of centrality, coupled with some particular features of the job the Claimant taxi administrator had done, no longer existed after the change. The service as operated after the change by the client was held to be essentially a different activity, and the Judge held entitled as to find.

Download the full EAT judgement here.