In Jackson v Computershare Investor Services plc [2007] EWCA Civ 1065, the Court of Appeal ruled that the provision in the TUPE Regulations to the effect that a transferred contract of employment will have effect after the transfer as if originally made between the employee and the transferee could not be construed so as to give the employee a contractual benefit to which she had not been entitled under her original contract.
The High Court has held that an employee's resignation two days after he had been informed that he was being transferred was a valid objection to the transfer.
In Millam v The Print Factory (London) 1991 Ltd [2007] IRLR 526 CA, the Court of Appeal held that where the operation - as opposed to the ownership of a business - transferred to a new owner, TUPE applied notwithstanding that the business was acquired on a sale of shares.
In London Metropolitan University v Sackur and others EAT/0286/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that standardisation of employees' terms is not of itself sufficient to give rise to an ETO defence.
In Mackie v Aberdeen City Council [2006] CSIH 36, the Court of Session holds that there was no TUPE transfer when a private-sector employee working on a project for a local authority was subsequently offered a job in-house, despite a letter from the local authority indicating that a transfer had taken place.
In The Print Factory (London) 1991 Ltd v Millam EAT/0253/06, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that a TUPE transfer could not be inferred from the fact that, after an acquisition of shares, the holding company exercised management control of the subsidiary.
In G4S Justice Services (UK) Ltd v Anstey and others [2006] IRLR 588 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that employees dismissed for gross misconduct prior to a TUPE transfer, but whose appeals were subsequently upheld, were employed "immediately before" the transfer, with the result that their employment transferred.
In North Wales Training and Enterprise Council Ltd v Astley and others [2006] UKHL 29, the House of Lords holds that despite the intentions of the parties concerned, seconded employees were transferred to the new undertaking on the date when employer responsibility for carrying on the business transferred.