This case involved the TUPE transfer of a maintenance contract for a housing organisation under the Service Provision Change Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006. It appeared to the transferee that the transferor had been operating illegal contracts with their employee's consent to defraud the Inland Revenue, particularly in relation to overtime. Six of the claimants lost their claims on unfair dismissal at tribunal due to their contracts being tainted by illegality. The remainder lodged an appeal on the size of the awards and liability of the transferee and transferor.

The absence of any records pertaining to time in lieu seemed crucial to the tribunal's finding that the appellants participated in the illegal payments. The Court of Appeal agreed in the majority of these cases and rejected the appeals.

Two appeals (on quantum), where the tribunal found insufficient evidence of payment for overtime working, were partly successful in that the NICA found that the tribunal was wrong to not award an automatic uplift of the award under the statutory dismissal procedures. It accepted... "the appellant's submission that the test of exceptional circumstances making a reduction unjust or inequitable does not give rise to a general just and equitable jurisdiction. To that extent, therefore, we accept that the tribunal applied the wrong test when dealing with the question of the uplift."

In relation to liability under failure to inform or consult provisions, the NICA noted that Regulation 15(9) of the 2006 Regulations provides that the transferee shall be jointly and severally liable with the transferor in respect of compensation payable under Regulation 15(8)(a) of the 2006 Regulations. However, the enforcement mechanism for that liability is separately established under Regulation 15(11) of the 2006 Regulations and allows the tribunal to confine liability to the transferee or transferor and the NICA accepted that the tribunal properly confined their finding to the first respondent. 

http://bit.ly/19XdhBE