Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


MSF v Refuge Assurance

[2002] IRLR 324

Case summary last updated at 18/02/2020 21:25 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case MSF v Refuge Assurance

Two life assurance companies were due to merge, which could have meant possible redundancies. Under s.188 the employer only has to consult when it is proposing to make redundancies, whereas under directive 75/129 an employer who contemplates it has to do so. The EAT held that the two are incompatible because the latter arises where the employer is merely thinking about redundancies, whereas the former only arises when there are concrete proposals to put to the union. Thus in this situation, where it wasn’t yet sure whether there would be redundancies, there could not be a proposal and hence no breach of s.188 TULRCA occurred. 

MSF v Refuge Assurance crops up in following areas of law