You're wrong, in law. That is the whole point of the TUPE Regs, to ensure that new owners are responsible for the employment rights of the old owners. It doesn't matter that the old owners get shut. If they have a civil action for wrongful dismissal or unfair selection for redundancy, it is against the new owners, as they take on the employment obligations of the old owners.

Employment rights transfer. Debts don't.

I wouldn't want to speculate about this case specifically, but in a similar case could the new owners not claim it was fair dismissal on a misconduct charge?

Because the facts of the case are not available for public consumption, it's difficult, and, when this case concludes, there'll be some kind of confidentiality clause involved as a result.

And the other problem is if who we think have brought this case have, they'd never get a fair discussion on here, more a kangaroo court.

Sad to see the old leaks still seem to be around today.

I know nothing about the specifics of the case. I'm just talking in generalities on employment law.

The new owners could defend any action on any basis that the law allows.

Perhaps the misunderstanding in the previous post was because I suggested that TUPE stops an employer just getting rid of employees and selling the company on. In reality, employment law doesn't "stop" an employer doing anything. Employers are perfectly at liberty to mistreat their employees, and can discriminate on the basis of race, gender or sexuality. What employment law does is give employees a right to sue their former employers for their actions. It can't stop mistreatment, unfairness or discrimination. What it can do is give a right of redress that acts as an incentive not to act in that way.

Hence TUPE can't "stop" a former employer doing whatever it likes against its employees. What they do provide, however, is the ability of the former employees to take action against the new owners, which of course the new owner can defend.

I'm not saying which side will win, as I know nothing of the specifics (or even generalities, or even if there is a case being brought). What I am saying that it is not as simple as saying, "Ah, that was all O'Hara's".

Redundancy can happen when there is a Economical, Technical or Organisational need for change. I would have thought that it could very much be argued that there was economic need for reducing the wage bill at the club especially as there were sales of players at the same time.

Yes, it is sad to see this sort of thing. It doesn't reflect well on those concerned. That may be an issue for another time.

In the meantime, thanks to Slugger and those who actually know what they're talking about for explaining the situation to us laymen (and women).

The Tribunal would not look particularly favourably on a misconduct charge that was conjured out of thin air after the fact, to justify a dismissal or redundancy; furthermore, even if they did, the correct process (the organisations own disciplinary procedure) would have to have been followed to the letter, otherwise (I think I'm still right on this) the dismissal is automatically unfair.

I don't think the issue is the case for redundancy per se, it is whether the jobs can be genuinely be considered to have remained redundant under new ownership.

Not correct. If the employer can demonstrate is that the end result would have been the same had the process been followed, then it is highly unlikely that an unfair dismissal claim would be sucessful.

Cheers - I was a bit shaky on that part.

I beg to differ somewhat - if the process isn't followed then its automatically unfair.

If the scenario you paint is realised however then the tribunal judge has the capacity to find the dismissal unfair but not require that the claimant receives any financial recompence.

This is because the financial awards from tribunals relate to losses (relating to lost earnings, future likely earnings etc..) and if the claimants would have been dismissed anyway then there would not have been any losses.

I have professional experience of representing SMEs through this process.

I'll bow to you on that one. Although I specialised in employment law when I first qualified, it is fifteen years since I represented someone in an industrial tribunal. Been purely crime since then.