Cases2403467/2024

Claimant v Smart DCC Limited

30 July 2025Before Employment Judge LeachManchesterremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds

Individual claims

Othersucceeded

The tribunal found that there was a relevant transfer under TUPE regulation 3(1)(b) from Capita Business Services Limited to the respondent on 18 April 2024. The activities carried out by the respondent's TOC team were fundamentally the same as those carried out by the claimants' Out of Hours team. All claimants were assigned to the transferring services, meaning their employment transferred by operation of law to the respondent.

Facts

Eight claimants worked as analysts and a team leader in the Out of Hours (OOH) team for Capita Business Services Limited (CBSL), providing 24-hour incident management services for Smart DCC Limited under an outsourcing agreement. Smart DCC decided to insource the OOH service in April 2024, moving the core regulatory activities to its own Technical Operations Centre (TOC) team. CBSL maintained the claimants were not protected by TUPE because only a minority of tasks transferred and the same employer (CBSL) employed staff both before and after. The claimants argued their principal purpose was providing the mandatory 24-hour regulatory service, which transferred in its entirety to Smart DCC's TOC team.

Decision

The tribunal found there was a relevant TUPE transfer on 18 April 2024. The activities carried out by Smart DCC's TOC team were fundamentally the same as the core regulatory activities performed by the OOH team. The principal purpose of the OOH team was to maintain 24-hour regulatory compliance, not the ancillary category 4-5 incident resolution work that remained with CBSL. All eight claimants were assigned to the transferring services and their employment automatically transferred to Smart DCC by operation of law.

Practical note

TUPE can apply to insourcing within a corporate group where an outsourced service moves from one group company carrying it out under contract to another group company taking it in-house, and the 'minority of tasks' argument fails where the tasks that transfer constitute the principal purpose of the organised grouping of employees.

Legal authorities cited

Botzen v Rotterdamsche Droogdak Maatschappij BV [1986] 2 CMLR 50Metropolitan Resources Limited v Churchill Dulwich Limited UKEAT 0286/09Celtec v Astley [2005] ICR 1409Edinburgh Home Link Partnership v City of Edinburgh Council UKEATS/0061/11Kimberley Group Housing Limited v Hambley [2008] ICR 1030Arch Initiatives v Greater Manchester West NHS Foundation Trust EAT/0267/15Johnson Controls Limited v Campbell UKEAT 0041/12Clearsprings Limited v Ankers UKEAT/0054/08Seawell Limited v Ceva Freight [2013] IRLR 726Enterprise Management Services Limited v Connect Up Limited UKEAT/0462

Statutes

TUPE 2006 Regulation 4(1)TUPE 2006 Regulation 3(3)(a)(i)TUPE 2006 Regulation 3(2A)TUPE 2006 Regulation 3(1)(b)

Case details

Case number
2403467/2024
Decision date
30 July 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
energy
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Analyst / Team Leader

Claimant representation

Represented
No