The United Kingdom has voted to leave the EU. Before the referendum, we considered in detail the potential impact of Brexit in the context of restructuring and insolvency. In particular we highlighted that Brexit could have an impact on cross-border restructuring/insolvency given the UK is currently viewed as a popular jurisdiction for implementing complex cross-border restructurings and insolvencies in light the regimes being widely regarded as well established, flexible and creditor friendly.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”), in the case of Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills v McDonagh, has had to consider what the “appropriate date” is for the purposes of employees claiming arrears of salary and holiday pay from the National Insurance Fund, in circumstances where a voluntary insolvency procedure is followed by a compulsory insolvency procedure.

The Court of Appeal has issued further guidance on the thorny issue of the application of the TUPE Regulations to administration proceedings.  While many practitioners will feel that the decisions are not helpful in trying to achieve business sales in what is already a challenging market, insolvency practitioners (IPs) nonetheless need to be aware of the clarity that these cases have brought. The key points to note are:

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).

OTG v Barke is the latest case from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) to consider how the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) apply in the context of the sale of a business in administration. The case largely resolves the uncertainty in that context and affirms the general practice of administrators and purchasers of businesses from them.

Administrators will note with concern the decision of the East London Employment Tribunal in Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and Others, which suggests that administrators can be held to be personally liable for the discrimination of employees of the business in administration.

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.

The Court of Appeal in Haine v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform has held that where redundancies are made in breach of obligations to carry out collective consultation and the employer then goes into insolvency, a protective award subsequently ordered by an employment tribunal is a debt in the liquidation.

Impact on employers