In Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB and another [2008] IRLR 187, the EAT refused to strike out a claim alleging breach of consultation duties arising pursuant to the TUPE Regulations 2006.
In Regent Security Services Ltd v Power [2007] EWCA Civ 1188 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an employee transferred under the 1981 TUPE Regulations could choose to enforce new, more beneficial terms agreed with the transferee, even where the variation was connected with the transfer.
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the TUPE Regulations to the effect that a transferred contract of employment will have effect after the transfer as if originally made between the employee and the transferee could not be construed so as to give the employee a contractual benefit to which she had not been entitled under her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.