City firm overturns TUPE ruling in Jarvis case
Employment contracts of solicitors made redundant when their employers go into administration should not automatically transfer to law firms acting for the administrators, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled yesterday. The ruling on transfer of undertakings, protection of employment (TUPE) regulations, will free administrators to instruct their own legal advisers.
The appeal was brought by City firm SNR Denton, which was instructed in March 2010 by the administrators of the Jarvis Group of companies. A Jarvis solicitor, who lost her job on 31 March 2010, claimed that there had been a service provision change under TUPE because SNR Denton went on to carry out legal work she had previously been doing.
An employment tribunal agreed that there had been a service provision change and that consequently the solicitor’s employment contract should have transferred to SNR Denton.
The EAT overturned this decision in the light of the reasoning in an earlier case (Hunter v McCarrick) that, for there to be a service provision change, the work must be carried out for the same client. The solicitor’s work was carried out for her client, Jarvis, whereas SNR Denton’s work was carried out for its client, the administrators.
The employment tribunal, it appeared, had treated Jarvis and the administrators as a single client.
SNR Denton employment partner Pauline McArdle said: ‘This decision is of particular significance to administrators. Had the original decision been upheld it would have hampered the ability of administrators to instruct their own service providers. We are delighted with the outcome.’
News
- Overwhelming public backing for legal aid: poll
- Mass meeting of barristers takes a stand on QASA
- PI firm turns to fixed-price mediation for post-Jackson world
- Grayling asks for quality standard for PCT firms
- 7,000 lawyers to hit the streets for free legal advice
- Pilot aims to limit clinical negligence solicitors’ fees
- Will-writing could still be regulated
- In-house growth accelerating
- Appeal Court applies Russian law in dispute
- Insurers to revamp third-party code
- Court interpreters reject new contract deal
- European data plan labelled ‘demented’
- Saudi Arabia accepts registration of female lawyer
- Don’t worry about Jackson fallout – judge
- North-west PI paralegal initiative
- French revolution
- Criminal legal aid cuts to reach £370m
- SRA’s popularity slips
- Traffic courts to be set up
- Economy 'testing access to justice'
- MoJ plans crackdown on ‘so-called’ experts
- Midlands ABS issues ‘join us’ offer to insurers
- Law Society Excellence Awards now open for nomination
- Desperate PI firms breaking referral fee ban – AXA chief
- Jurors ‘confused’ on new media contempt
- End-to-end negligence defence practice sets up as ABS

Comments
off-topic HSBC
apologies for the off-topic post - hope I don't get modded-off!
Given HSBC's holier than thou attitude in their recent panel membership debacle, and given their recently annouced spectacular failure to comply with money laundering regulations, should we, as a responsible regulated profession, now cease to receive any mortgage advances from HSBC or to accept purchase monies or deposits from HSBC accounts as we cannot rely on these funds being properly checked upon deposit?
Should TLS be issuing treasury approved guidance on this?
best to all.
You don't seriously expect
You don't seriously expect the Law Society to point out that HSBC has admitted that its own compliance is entirely defective surely?
Naturally the "Quality Conveyancing" body should point this out to all clients -but then where would they get their fees from?