Mr Andrew Jarvis v Charnwood Borough Council and 1 other — 2026

Mr Andrew Jarvis transferred from Capita Business Services Ltd to Charnwood Borough Council under TUPE on 1 November 2024 and was dismissed for redundancy on the same date. The Tribunal rejected his case that the dismissal was a sham or that the Council had decided not to retain him because of his salary. It found that his role primarily involved managing the contractual relationship between Capita and the Council, which ceased when the Revenues and Benefits Service was brought in-house.

The Tribunal found that the Council's new structure, involving separate management of the two sides of the service and the loss of the benefits expertise supplied by another Capita employee who did not transfer, amounted to an organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce under regulation 7(2) of TUPE. The dismissal was therefore not automatically unfair under regulation 7(1).

For the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, the Tribunal found a redundancy situation under section 139(1)(b)(i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the requirement for an employee to manage the contract between the Council and Capita had ceased or was expected to cease. Applying section 98(4) and the Williams v Compair Maxam guidelines, it found that consultation was timely and meaningful. Mr Jarvis did not apply for or enquire about the two new roles, and there was no evidence of other suitable alternative employment. The alleged failure to apply Capita's redundancy policy did not render the procedure unfair. The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.

The claim against Capita Business Services Ltd had been withdrawn on 21 May 2025 and was formally dismissed upon withdrawal. The breach of contract complaint, concerning the basis on which redundancy pay was calculated, was withdrawn at the commencement of the hearing and dismissed upon withdrawal. No monetary award was made.