An 'interesting TUPE case' might reasonably be regarded
by all but a very select few as something of an oxymoron. The
recent judgment of the EAT in Amaryllis v McLeod, at first glance,
could certainly be mistaken as being one for the TUPE anoraks
alone. However, it does raise important points about when a service
provision change type transfer (e.g. where activities are
outsourced or taken in-house) will and will not take place.
Facts
Millbrook Furnishings Limited was an established business
employing around 370 workers. For over fifty years it held
contracts with the Ministry of Defence for the renovation of
upholstered wood and metal furniture. Between 2003 and 2008,
another company, Amaryllis, secured a much wider MoD contract,
which included the supply of new furniture as well as furniture
renovation work. As Amaryllis did not have any furniture
renovation facilities in-house, they sub-contracted the majority of
the furniture renovation work under the MoD
