Mrs M Crane (1) Mrs S Moody (2) v Hudson Catering Limited and 1 other — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing in the claims brought by Mrs Crane and Mrs Moody about the catering operation at NEAS headquarters. The tribunal heard evidence about Hudson Catering's subsidised canteen service, the claimants' long-standing work at the site, and Nu To Go's later operation from the same premises under a licence from NEAS.

Applying the TUPE authorities cited in the judgment, the tribunal found that Hudson had operated a stable and sufficiently structured economic entity and that it retained its identity when Nu began trading. The tribunal relied on the continuity of the premises, the largely similar catering activity, the continuing customer base, the short gap of about nine days between operations, and the fact that changing the formal contractual basis from a service agreement to a licence did not avoid TUPE. It accepted that there were differences in menu, service style, opening days, and some additional features such as bulk sales and a drive-through window, but held that those differences did not prevent a transfer.

The tribunal therefore held that there was both a transfer of an undertaking/business under regulation 3(1)(a) and, alternatively, a service provision change under regulation 3(1)(b)(ii). No final remedy was determined at this hearing; the judgment states that the matter would be listed for a further private preliminary hearing for directions.