The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) had given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case ofDonnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland (Donnelly) and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond (Dooneen).

The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case of Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond.

It is estimated that there were almost 40,000 Protected Trust Deeds (“PTD”) entered into between 2005 and 2010. Similar to an IVA, a PTD is a voluntary arrangement in which the debtor conveys his estate to an insolvency practitioner (“the Trustee”) to be held on trust for the benefit of creditors. A large number of those who enter into a PTD do so because of borrowing that they have incurred on credit cards.

The EAT has confirmed that it is not necessary for the eventual transferee to have been identified in order for an employee, dismissed in the run up to a transfer, to claim automatic unfair dismissal by reason of a relevant transfer under TUPE (Spaceright Europe Ltd v Baillavoine & another).

The Court of Appeal has heard the appeal in Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd. Although its written judgment has not yet been published, it appears that it heard an appeal only on a narrow point of employment law and did not give definitive guidance on the application of the insolvency provisions in the TUPE Regulations which had been the principal issue in the EAT.

This recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) is one of the first to examine how the insolvency provisions in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) should apply and, in particular, the circumstances in which employment liabilities passed under TUPE to the buyer of the assets of an insolvent company.

Facts

This case involved a "pre-pack" administration.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held, in Da Silva Junior v Composite Mouldings and Design Limited, that continuity of employment was preserved where an employee of a company in voluntary liquidation was subsequently employed by a company with the same majority shareholder.