Systems Developer made redundant after outsourcing decision: TUPE transfer claim fails
A tribunal dismissed a Systems Developer's claim that his redundancy was automatically unfair due to a TUPE transfer, finding the dismissal was genuinely for redundancy and not connected to any transfer.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #tupe
- #redundancy
- #outsourcing
- #bespoke-software
- #off-the-shelf
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Systems Developer from 28 April 2014 until 15 December 2020.
- The respondent decided to phase out bespoke software development and purchase off-the-shelf products.
- The claimant's role was made redundant on 15 December 2020.
- The respondent entered into a Framework Agreement with Blueberry Systems Limited but no development work was outsourced.
- The claimant argued that his dismissal was automatically unfair due to a TUPE transfer, but the tribunal found no relevant transfer.
- The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the reason for dismissal was redundancy, not a TUPE transfer.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Claimant commenced employment as a Systems Developer at Forest Garden Limited's Hartlebury site.
-
Decision to recruit second developer
Respondent decided to recruit a second software developer due to risk of single developer, but later terminated the role due to insufficient work.
-
Claimant queried future role
Claimant emailed Mr Mayo asking about his future without Symphony and future plans for software development; no response received.
-
Framework Agreement with Blueberry
Respondent entered into a Framework Agreement with Blueberry Systems Limited for software development and support services.
-
At risk of redundancy letter
Claimant informed that his role was at risk of redundancy due to proposal to move all application development and support to a third party.
-
First consultation meeting
Consultation meeting held; claimant raised disadvantages of outsourcing; Mr Mayo agreed to take points to the board.
-
Second consultation meeting
Claimant raised TUPE issue; respondent agreed to consider it.
-
Third consultation meeting
Mr Mayo acknowledged TUPE could apply; respondent concluded TUPE did not apply as role was not being outsourced.
-
Dismissal by reason of redundancy
Claimant dismissed on grounds of redundancy; paid in lieu of notice.
-
Claimant started new job
Claimant commenced new role with Venersys.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Seaborn; decision to dismiss upheld.
-
Appeal outcome letter
Mr Seaborn confirmed decision to dismiss on grounds of redundancy; TUPE not applicable.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason was a TUPE transfer, or whether it was a genuine redundancy.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for automatically unfair dismissal. It found that the respondent had genuinely decided to phase out bespoke software development and purchase off-the-shelf products, making the claimant's role redundant. The Framework Agreement with Blueberry Systems Limited did not amount to a TUPE transfer as no development work was actually outsourced. The claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, not because of a transfer.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A genuine redundancy situation exists when an employer decides to stop doing a particular type of work, even if some of that work is later outsourced.
- For a TUPE transfer to apply, there must be a transfer of an economic entity that retains its identity; a mere framework agreement with no actual work transferred is not enough.
- Employers should clearly document the business reasons for redundancy decisions to demonstrate they are genuine and not a sham.
- Employees who believe their dismissal is connected to a TUPE transfer should gather evidence of an actual transfer of activities, not just a decision to outsource.
This case shows that a decision to outsource work does not automatically trigger TUPE protection if the employer genuinely stops doing the work rather than transferring it to a new provider. The claimant, a Systems Developer with seven years' service, was made redundant after his employer decided to phase out bespoke software development and buy off-the-shelf products instead. The claimant argued that the real reason was a TUPE transfer to Blueberry Systems Limited, with whom the employer had signed a Framework Agreement. However, the tribunal found that no development work was actually outsourced to Blueberry, and the employer's decision was a genuine redundancy.
What the employer did right
Forest Garden Limited had a clear business rationale for the redundancy: the board identified the risk of relying on a single developer and found that purchasing off-the-shelf products was more cost-effective. They consulted with the claimant, considered his objections, and properly considered whether TUPE applied. The tribunal accepted that the employer genuinely believed the role was redundant and that no transfer had occurred.
What the employee could have done differently
The claimant represented himself and focused on the TUPE argument. However, the evidence showed that the employer had already decided to stop bespoke development before the Framework Agreement was signed. If the claimant had challenged the fairness of the redundancy process itself (e.g., lack of suitable alternative employment search), the outcome might have been different. But the claim was limited to automatic unfair dismissal under TUPE, which requires a direct link between the dismissal and a transfer.
Why this matters
This case highlights that TUPE protection is not triggered simply because an employer decides to outsource work. There must be an actual transfer of an economic entity that retains its identity. For employees facing redundancy due to outsourcing, it is important to check whether a transfer of activities has actually occurred, and to consider challenging the fairness of the redundancy process if the employer has not followed proper procedures.
Similar cases
TUPE transfer during liquidation: protective award and unfair dismissal claims fail, but consultation breach succeeds
Former telemarketing employees lose protective award and unfair dismissal claims after a TUPE transfer from a company in creditors' voluntary liquidation, but win compensation for failure to consult.
Four night drivers unfairly dismissed after employer wrongly assumed TUPE transfer
Four HGV night drivers with up to 12 years' service were unfairly dismissed when their employer assumed their jobs would transfer to a new contractor under TUPE, but the tribunal found no organised grouping existed.
Care workers dismissed after TUPE transfer: claims against new provider mostly out of time
Four care workers who lost their jobs when a quadriplegic man's care moved to a new provider won statutory redundancy pay, but their unfair dismissal and notice claims failed because they were brought too late.
TUPE transfer: roaming employees assigned to business unit that transferred
Three of seven employees found to have transferred under TUPE when part of their employer's business was sold out of administration. The tribunal examined assignment of roaming, multi-site workers.