The Court of Appeal has recently published its decision in the case of Woodcock v Cumbria PCT. This case has attracted a significant amount of attention in the media as the case looks at the extent to which employers can rely on cost considerations to justify discrimination. Although the case does not break new ground, it does show that economic factors can be taken into consideration by employers in some cases.

Background

In the matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) and in the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 [2012] UKSC 6 On appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 917  

Summary

Commercial Agreements -v- Commercial Reality: Supreme Court further develops principles of contractual interpretation?

Rainy Sky S.A. and others v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50

Summary

Regulation 7 of TUPE states that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the main reason for dismissal is the transfer itself, or a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce (‘ETO reason’). This provision has caused some uncertainty where employees are dismissed by an administrator in order to make a business more attractive to a prospective (but as yet unknown) purchaser.

The TUPE Regulations contain some provisions designed to make struggling businesses more attractive to prospective purchasers. TUPE will not apply to transfer employees, and dismissals will not be automatically unfair, where insolvency proceedings have been instituted with a view to liquidation of assets (Regulation 8(7)). However, TUPE will apply to insolvency proceedings which do not aim to liquidate assets, and employees will have unfair dismissal protection (Regulation 8(8)).

Written Ministerial statement

Edward Davey, Minister for Employment relations, consumers and postal affairs; Department for Business, innovation and skills

In March 2011 I announced that we would be taking steps to improve the transparency and confidence of pre-pack sales in insolvency.  We subsequently consulted interested parties on measures targeted at the sales of assets in insolvent companies where these are sold to connected parties (such as the directors or their close associates).

 The Court of Appeal has held that a transfer on an administration cannot be caught by TUPE rules, unlike on insolvency proceedings. As such administrations will not be “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the exemption to TUPE.

What does this mean?

Businesses who purchase companies who have been placed into administration will take on the liability under TUPE for the company’s employees. Employees will transfer under TUPE and  will be protected from transfer- connected dismissals.

What should employers do?

Today (20th December) the Court of Appeal has clarified how TUPE applies when a business is sold after administration proceedings are instituted. It has decided that employees transfer to the new owner of the business, and are protected from transfer-related dismissals, thereby putting to rest more than two years of legal uncertainty following conflicting decisions from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT).

Limited liability is not complete protection for directors and they must carefully consider their actions and, indeed, failures to act in order to avoid “piercing the corporate veil”.  Directors may be ordered to contribute to the assets of the company even where they have not acted dishonestly.

A common issue facing landlords of commercial premises is to decide what to do if one of its tenants has stopped paying the rent and has entered into one of the types of insolvency prescribed by statute. In the case of companies, these can include company voluntary arrangements, administration, administrative receivership, Law of Property Act receivership or liquidation. In the case of individuals, they might include individual voluntary arrangements or bankruptcy.