Search

How can we help?

Icon

TUPE regulations apply even where large part of job becomes automated

In Anglo Beef Processors v Longland and Meat & Livestock Commercial Services, Mr Longland had been employed as a carcass service officer for Meat & Livestock, manually classifying carcasses in an abattoir.

Anglo Beef (the client) contracted with Meat & Livestock to provide carcass inspection services. Mr Longland occasionally used computer software to electronically classify the carcasses but in the majority of the time, he classified the caracasses manually. Anglo Beef eventually decided that they would take the classifying services back in-house and use computer software going forward. Anglo Beef terminated the contract with Meat & Livestock.

Both the ET and EAT upheld Mr Longland’s claim and reiterated the importance of adopting a common sense approach to whether the activities remained “fundamentally the same.”

Mr Longland claimed at tribunal that the TUPE Regulations applied and as a result, he should transfer to Anglo Beef on the basis that the activities carried out were “fundamentally the same” both before and after the transfer.

Both the ET and EAT upheld Mr Longland’s claim and reiterated the importance of adopting a common sense approach to whether the activities remained “fundamentally the same.” The activity of processing and labelling carcasses did not change (whether done manually or electronically) and so Mr Longland should have TUPE transferred to Anglo Beef.

This case follows in the same vein as cases before it, the mode of carrying out an activity may change but the activity may remain fundamentally the same. This area of law is very fact specific so for more information, please contact our TUPE Solicitors.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 23 October 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Section 172 Companies Act 2006: Key lessons from Saxon Woods v Costa

The Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods v Costa UKSC 21 clarifies directors’ duties under Section 172 Companies Act 2006, confirming that good faith requires both honest belief and appropriate conduct.

art
  • 22 October 2026
  • Corporate and M&A

Shareholders’ Agreements for Founders and Investors – SHA Series Part 3 of 5

A shareholders’ agreement is arguably one of the most valuable corporate governance agreements (along with articles of association) in any private UK company with more than one shareholder.

art
  • 19 October 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks: Are UK businesses becoming immigration enforcement officers?

The UK’s Right to Work regime has undergone a significant expansion, with changes taking effect from 1 October 2026.

art
  • 15 October 2026

Clarkslegal celebrates continued success in Chambers and Partners UK 2027

Clarkslegal is delighted to announce that we have once again been recognised by Chambers and Partners UK 2027, celebrating continued success across the firm and a number of enhanced individual rankings.

Pub
  • 15 October 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

Data breaches and ICO investigations: Responding with confidence

In this podcast Harry Berryman and Zahra Navarro discuss recent ICO enforcement action, common causes of data breaches, and the practical steps organisations should take to respond effectively when incidents occur.

art
  • 14 October 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

London Court of International Arbitration v International Chamber of Commerce: Key differences

Compare LCIA and ICC arbitration rules, costs, confidentiality provisions and expedited procedures. Learn the key differences between these leading international arbitration institutions and how to choose the right option for your commercial dispute.