Mr Maariya Mohammed & others v European Living Retail Limited (in Administration) and 3 others — 2026

The tribunal determined a preliminary issue in consolidated claims by former employees of European Living Retail Limited. The claimants alleged that the first respondent was a transferor under regulation 3(1)(a) of TUPE, and that European Living Design Limited and European Living Interiors Ltd were transferees when they began operating the Edinburgh and Glasgow stores. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade was an interested party because sums had been claimed from it after the first respondent entered administration.

The tribunal found that the first respondent operated BoConcept stores and concessions, and that by September 2024 its directors had decided it should enter administration. The second and third respondents were incorporated to take over the Edinburgh and Glasgow stores. Although the first respondent's franchise agreement ended and new franchise agreements began on 14 October 2024, and although customer payments were directed to new bank accounts after the first respondent's bank account was frozen, the tribunal found that payments and orders up to 31 October 2024 continued to be accounted for as assets of the first respondent.

The tribunal found that the Edinburgh and Glasgow stores were distinct and severable stable economic entities. Each retained its identity after the change: the stores continued trading without interruption, had the same appearance, continued using BoConcept branding, retained most staff at those locations, and customer orders and assets were taken over by the relevant new company. The closure of the Tillicoultry and Aberdeen concessions and reduction in staff did not prevent the Edinburgh and Glasgow stores from retaining their identity.

The tribunal held that there were two relevant transfers under regulation 3(1)(a) of TUPE: the Edinburgh store transferred from the first respondent to the second respondent, and the Glasgow store transferred from the first respondent to the third respondent. Each transfer occurred on 1 November 2024, when the new employment arrangements and customer/order responsibilities took effect. The tribunal rejected the argument that a terminal insolvency event prevented the normal TUPE consequences, holding that administration was not a process with a view to liquidation of assets in the relevant sense. No remedy was determined in this judgment, and the claims were to proceed to further case management for remaining issues.