Aegon UK Corporate Services Ltd

Case Summary

The claim for dismissal under TUPE regulation 4(9) and unfair dismissal on the grounds of constructive dismissal were dismissed. The claim for redundancy was well-founded, but the claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment.

The claimant's claims for TUPE dismissal and constructive unfair dismissal were rejected on their merits after a full hearing. The redundancy claim was found to be well-founded but the claimant was not entitled to a redundancy payment, likely due to not meeting the statutory qualifying conditions.

• •substantial_change_in_working_conditions
• •breach_of_implied_term_of_trust_and_confidence
• •redundancy

Case No: 3304563/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Peter MacMurray Respondent: Aegon UK Corporate Services Ltd Heard at: Watford (in person) On: 17-18 March 2025 Before: Employment Judge MJ Smith REPRESENTATION: For the Claimant: Mr A MacPhail (Barrister) For the Respondent: Mr J Platts-Mills (Barrister) RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal under regulation 4(9) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 is not well-founded and is dismissed. 2. The claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal on the grounds of constructive dismissal is not well-founded and is dismissed. 3. The claimant’s claim for dismissal on the grounds of redundancy is well-founded but the claimant is not entitled to a redundancy payment. 4. The remedy hearing of 19-20 May 2025 is vacated. Case No: 3304563/2024 2 REASONS Introduction 1. This is a claim for dismissal contrary to regulation 4(9) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) arising from the claimant claiming that there has been a ‘substantial change in working conditions to the material detriment of’ the claimant. In particular the claimant asserts that there are two such changes namely to his working location such that he would work permanently from home and to his medical insurance which would change from his daughters being covered until they were aged 25 to being covered to the age of 21. 2. In the alternative, the claimant presents a claim of unfair dismissal contrary to section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) arising from the same circumstances as the TUPE claim such that the changes amount to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in the contract with the respondent. 3. Further in the alternative, the claimant claims unfair dismissal on the grounds of redundan…