Wendy Drake v Churchill Contract Services Ltd
[2024] EAT 88
Gina Gannon v Teuta Bicaku & Anor t/a Ivory Dental Clinic
2 November 2023
[2023] EAT 143
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A worker sued her dental clinic for not properly telling her about the business being sold. The first judge said the clinic was okay, but a higher court said the judge didn't look at all the rules properly and sent the case back to be decided again.
Key Facts
- •Gina Gannon appealed an Employment Tribunal (ET) decision dismissing her claim against Ivory Dental Clinic for breach of TUPE Regulations 13 and 13A.
- •Gannon was the practice manager; the clinic had two partners, Bicaku and Tombazidou-Crawford.
- •Tombazidou-Crawford was prevented from practicing dentistry, leading to discussions and eventual sale to Dental Beauty.
- •The sale was finalized on March 9, 2021, after staff were informed that morning.
- •The ET found that the respondents had complied with Regulation 13A, as staff were informed of the sale on the day it happened.
Legal Principles
Obligations to inform and consult under TUPE Regulations 13 and 13A.
TUPE Regulations
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; case remitted to a new ET.
The original ET failed to consider several relevant TUPE regulations (13(2)(b), (c), (d), 13(5), (6), and 15(2)) and to make key factual findings. The ET may have implicitly relied on Regulation 13(9) without explicitly stating so.