Bathstore store-by-store sale: no TUPE transfer for head office staff
Five former Bathstore employees failed to prove their contracts transferred to Homebase after it bought 44 stores. The tribunal ruled each store was a separate economic entity and none of the claimants were assigned to a transferred store.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #tupe
- #economic-entity
- #store-by-store
- #assignment
- #administration
- #redundancy
Key facts
- Bathstore entered administration on 26 June 2019.
- Homebase acquired 44 of 135 Bathstore stores via a Sale and Purchase Agreement completed on 22 July 2019.
- The tribunal found each store was a separate economic entity, not the whole business.
- None of the five claimants were assigned to any of the 44 transferred stores.
- The claimants' contracts of employment did not transfer to Homebase Rooms Ltd under TUPE.
Timeline
-
Bathstore enters administration
Bathstore.com Limited entered administration. Administrators dismissed 85 head office employees and ceased installation and franchise support.
-
Deadline for offers
Three formal offers were received for Bathstore; only Homebase's offer was capable of completion.
-
36 stores closed
Administrators closed 36 Bathstore stores, dismissing employees.
-
Sale and Purchase Agreement signed
Homebase signed the agreement to acquire 44 stores, stock, and intellectual property.
-
Sale completed
The Sale and Purchase Agreement completed; Homebase took control of 44 stores.
-
Mr Louden dismissed
Peter Louden, store manager at Edinburgh Central, was dismissed by administrators after stock sold.
-
Mr Dunn dismissed
David Dunn, store manager for Stockton and Gateshead, was dismissed by administrators.
-
Ms Lahiffe dismissed
Abbie Lahiffe, HR Vice President, was dismissed by administrators.
-
Preliminary hearing begins
Employment Tribunal heard evidence over four days on TUPE issues.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Clarke ruled that TUPE did not apply to the claimants.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the acquisition of 44 Bathstore stores by Homebase amounted to a transfer of an economic entity under TUPE, and whether the claimants were assigned to that entity so that their contracts transferred to Homebase.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that TUPE did not apply to any of the five claimants' contracts. The key reason was that each Bathstore store was a separate economic entity, and the claimants were not assigned to any of the 44 stores that Homebase acquired. The HR Vice President and other head office staff, as well as store managers from non-transferred stores, remained employed by the administrator.
No compensation was awarded as the claimants lost their case.
Lessons & takeaways
- TUPE applies only if there is a transfer of an economic entity that retains its identity – a store-by-store sale may mean each store is a separate entity.
- Employees who are not assigned to a transferred part of the business will not have their contracts transfer, even if they worked for the same employer.
- Head office or regional staff may not transfer if their work is not specifically tied to the stores being acquired.
- Administration sales often involve complex TUPE issues – early legal advice is essential for employees who think they might transfer.
This case shows how TUPE can fail to protect employees when a business is sold in parts rather than as a whole. Bathstore entered administration in June 2019, and Homebase bought 44 of its 135 stores. The five claimants – including an HR Vice President and several store managers – argued that their contracts should have transferred to Homebase under TUPE. But the tribunal disagreed, ruling that each store was its own economic entity, and none of the claimants were assigned to any of the 44 stores that changed hands.
What the employer could have done differently
Homebase had already treated the acquisition as a store-by-store purchase, not a transfer of the whole business. The administrators dismissed the claimants before the sale completed. For employees in this situation, the key lesson is that TUPE only protects those who are 'assigned' to the part of the business that transfers. Head office staff and managers of non-transferred stores are unlikely to be covered.
Why this matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that in a multi-site business, each site may be a separate entity. Employees who work across multiple sites or at head office need to show a clear connection to the transferred stores. The case also highlights the importance of timing – dismissals by the administrator before the sale can break the link to the transferee. For anyone facing redundancy during an administration sale, it is vital to check whether their role is tied to the specific assets being sold, not just to the employer as a whole.
Similar cases
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.
TUPE transfer found after asset sale of insolvent company: managing director's claim succeeds
A managing director's employment was found to have transferred to the buyer of his insolvent employer's intellectual property and goodwill, even though production stopped for six months.
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.