CSV was contracted by Islington to provide an independent visitor service for children and Ms Bannon was employed by CSV as a project coordination manager. Islington intended to transfer the contract to Action for Children but was unable to do so because of concerns over Ms Bannon‟s disciplinary record. CSV's contract was not extended and Ms Bannon was dismissed by reason of redundancy.

Ms Bannon claimed Unfair Dismissal and the question arose whether TUPE applied. Islington had continued to provide a limited service similar to that provided by CSV and at a pre trial review the employment judge decided that Islington had been carrying on the independent visitor service (although unsatisfactorily) and therefore there had been a service provider change within the meaning of TUPE.

Islington appealed arguing that the activities of CSV and Islington were not fundamentally the same. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The judge had correctly applied the relevant law and the similarity of the services provided by CSV and then Islington was a question of fact on which she was entitled to come to the conclusion she did.

Read the full case decision here.