Back by popular demand — EAT guidance on service provision changes

The claimant in Rynda (UK) Ltd v Rhijnsburger had insufficient continuity of service to bring a claim for unfair dismissal based on her service with Rynda. She wanted to add her employment with her previous employer but this would be possible only if she could show that there had been a service provision change (SPC) covered by TUPE between the previous employer and Rynda.

The claimant’s employment history with her previous employer was: May to October 2009 — six-month fixed-term contract to manage properties in the Netherlands; October 2009 to March 2010 — employment on the Dutch portfolio and also a German portfolio; March 2010 — claimant became ill and when she recovered it was agreed that she would work solely on the Dutch properties. She was the only member of the company doing so.

Towards the end of 2010 it became clear that Rynda would assume responsibility for managing the Dutch property portfolio. The claimant’s employment ended on 31 December 2010 and she started with Rynda on 1 January 2011 with initial responsibility for managing the Dutch properties. She was dismissed in October 2011…

If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Hogan Lovells briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.

Briefings from Hogan Lovells

View more briefings from Hogan Lovells

Analysis from The Lawyer

View more analysis from The Lawyer


Atlantic House
Holborn Viaduct

Turnover (£m): 1,030.00
No. of lawyers: 2,280
(UK 200)
Jurisdiction: UK
No. of offices: 9
No. of qualified lawyers: 206 (International 50)