Secretary of State for Employment v Anchor Hotel (Kippford) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Year | 1985 |
| Date | 1985 |
Employment - Redundancy - Transfer of trade or business - Transferors dismissing employees - Notices of dismissal expiring on date of transfer of business - Whether transferors liable for redundancy payments - Whether Secretary of State liable to pay rebate -
In March 1984 the transferors agreed to sell their hotel to the transferees on 2 April 1984 and the employees were given notice that they would be dismissed on the transfer date. The transferors made redundancy payments to the dismissed employees but their application to the Secretary of State for Employment for a rebate was refused on the grounds that the transferors were not the party liable to make the redundancy payments since, as the business transfer and the employees' dismissals had taken place on the same day, regulation 5 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981F1 rendered the purchasers liable for the redundancy payments. The transferors' application to an industrial tribunal pursuant to section 108 of the
On appeal by the Secretary of State: —
Held, allowing the appeal, that the relevant date was not the date of notice of dismissal but the effective date of termination which in the present case was the same as the date of the transfer; that construing the Regulations broadly, whether the transfer preceded, followed, or was simultaneous with a dismissal on the same day, the effect of regulation 5 was that liability for redundancy payments passed to the transferee and that, accordingly, the transferor was not entitled to a rebate.
The following cases are referred to in the judgment:
Apex Leisure Hire v. Barratt [
Wendelboe v. L.J. Music Aps (in liquidation) (Case 19/83) (unreported), 12 July 1984,
No additional cases were cited in argument.
Appeal from an industrial tribunal sitting at Dumfries.
The Secretary of State for Employment appealed from a decision of the industrial tribunal on 17 January 1985 that the transferors, Anchor Hotel (Kippford) Ltd., were entitled to a rebate from the Redundancy Fund on the ground that they were obliged to pay redundancy payments to employees dismissed on the sale of the transferors' business. The Secretary of State appealed on the ground that the industrial tribunal had erred in law in holding that the dismissal took effect on the date the employees were given notice so that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 did not apply.
The appeal was heard and judgment was delivered in Edinburgh.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
K. I. K. MacLeod, solicitor, for the Secretary of State.
R. S. Govier, solicitor, for the transferors.
Waite J. delivered the following judgment of the appeal tribunal. This is an appeal i a case where an industrial tribunal was called upon to apply the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (the Regulations) to the sale of a family hotel. The vendors were obliged by the terms of sale to maintain the business as a going concern down to the date of entry, and at the same time to ensure that there were no full-time employees engaged by the business at that date. Accordingly the vendors' employees were each given due notice of dismissal timed to expire on the date of entry. There was no dispute that the circumstances of their dismissal constituted redundancy. So the vendors duly paid them their statutory redundancy payments. When, however, the vendors came to submit their claim to the Secretary of State for Employment for the statutory 41 per cent. rebate out of the Redundancy Fund, they were faced with a rejection. The Secretary of State can only pay a rebate lawfully to an employer who was the party liable in law to make the redundancy payment in the first place: section 104 of the
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Company Ltd
...Tribunal in England in Alphafield Ltd. (trading as Apex Leisure Hire) v. Barratt [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1062, and Secretary of State for Employment v. Anchor Hotel (Kippford) Ltd. [1985] l.C.R. 724 In Spence's case the Court of Appeal overruled those decisions. Your Lordships are now invited to o......
-
Secretary of State for Employment v Spence
... ... Barratt [ 1984 ] I.C.R. 452 , E.A.T.; Secretary of State for Employment v. Anchor Hotel (Kippford) Ltd. [ 1985 ] I.C.R. 724 , E.A.T.; Fenton v. Stablegold Ltd. [ 1986 ] ... ...
-
Secretary of State for Employment v Spence
... ... Barratt [ 1984 ] I.C.R. 452 , E.A.T. and Secretary of State for Employment v. Anchor Hotel (Kippford) Ltd. [ 1985 ] I.C.R. 724 , E.A.T. considered ... The following cases are ... ...
-
Amicus and Others v Dynamex Friction Ltd and another
...transfer” their employment was continued with the transferee of the business by regulation 5(1), following the decision in the Anchor Hotel case [1985] I.C.R. 724. It is worth noting that it was found as a fact by the industrial tribunal, first, that the sequence of events was the result of......
