Pensions and insolvency legislation uses the test in the Insolvency Act 1986 for assessing whether a person is ‘connected’ or ‘associated’ with another. This test is important because various statutory provisions use it, especially in limiting the persons whom the Pensions Regulator can make responsible for pension scheme deficits under the ‘moral hazard’ powers in the Pensions Act 2004. This briefing gives an outline of the statutory provisions and points to some difficult areas.  

Why is this relevant?  

Pre-2006, it was always clear that TUPE applied to transfer employees working in a business when it was bought out of administration. However, changes in 2006 provided that the automatic transfer principle would not apply to any transfer of a business or undertaking where the transferor was the subject of bankruptcy proceedings, which had been 'instituted with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor'.

In Oakland v Wellswood (Yorkshire) Ltd, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) decided that an employee of a business in administration was unable to have the protection afforded to employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) when the business in which he was employed was transferred and continued as a going concern with the transferee.

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.

In Dynamex Friction Ltd v Amicus an administrator had dismissed the entire workforce immediately on being appointed because the company had no money to pay its debts. At that time no transferee of the insolvent business had been identified and there was no prospect of a sale. However, the administrator did shortly afterwards agree a sale of the remaining company assets to a newly formed purchaser company that had links with the directors of the ‘old’ company.

In order to promote a "rescue culture", TUPE says that where the transferring business is the subject of bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings instituted "with a view to the liquidation of the assets of the transferor", the employees will not transfer and any dismissals connected with the transfer are not automatically unfair.

This case considered whether Bulmers Transport Limited (“Bulmers”) was under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner” pursuant to Regulation 8(7) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).

Comment

The case provides some helpful clarity on the inter-relationship of Regulation 8(7) TUPE and s388 Insolvency Act 1986, when determining whether a company is under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner”.

Not many people shed a tear for the players when a football club goes into administration. Instead the press always quote how much money the St John’s Ambulance Service loses. The realities are in any football insolvency the creditors (including the players) lose out and the players involved are usually at the lower level clubs. 

In Crystal Palace FC v Kavanagh the Court of Appeal has decided that liability for staff dismissed by the administrator before the sale of the club did not pass to the buyer under TUPE.

In Crystal Palace FC Ltd v Kavanagh & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1410, the Court of Appeal considered whether dismissals made by an administrator to keep a business alive with the ultimate aim of selling it were automatically unfair under TUPE, in which case liability would pass to the buyer.