The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
Back to basics is what the European Court of Justice (ECJ) seemed to be advocating in its celebrated decision on transfers of undertakings in Ayse Suzen v Zehnacker.
This is because Suzen seemed to be returning to a fundamentalist analysis of the nature of an economic entity, and the core ingredients of a transfer in line with the 1986 ECJ decision in Spijkers.
In Suzen an 'entity' was considered to be "an organised grouping of persons and assets facilitating the exercise of an economic activity which pursues a specific objective" and, as such, could not be reduced to a mere activity.
Based on Suzen, the ECJ focused on the need for the transfer of significant tangible or intangible assets or the majority of relevant staff for there to be a transfer of undertaking.
The approach was followed by the Court of Appeal on 26 March in Betts & ors v Brintel and KLM ERA Helicopters where a High Court finding of a transfer was overturned on careful analysis of the nature of the undertaking.
But while Suzen and Betts mark a return to a more rigorous assessment, they do not mean the end of transfers of undertakings on contracting-out.
In many cases intangible assets such as goodwill could transfer automatically.
If the legal ingredients of a transfer are in place (as in the ECJ judgment in Rotsart de Hertaing, November 1996), the staff will automatically transfer despite a transferee's failure to fulfil its obligations.