Two employees working as security guards at a site leased to Euro were told unexpectedly that they would not be working for Reliance, as ACT Security had taken over the contract.  They brought claims against Reliance, Euro and ACT for failure to inform and consult under TUPE and for unfair and wrongful dismissal.  They subsequently settled their claims against Reliance under ACAS brokered compromise agreements which stated that they received payments "in full and final settlement of the proceedings and of any claim he has or may have against the respondent" [Reliance].  The employment judge's decision that the effect of the compromise agreement was to release all three companies was, unsurprisingly, overturned by the EAT.  The agreement covered Reliance only and could not be extended by implication to the other parties, even though liability for failure to inform and consult is potentially joint and several between transferor and transferee.

The obvious message to be taken from this case is to ensure that compromise agreements cover all the potential parties to a TUPE transfer (if that is the intention).