Key points: the cost sharing exemption; general considerations; independent group of persons; exempt and/or non-business activity; directly necessary services; direct reimbursement of costs; distortion of competition; VAT groups; other relevant issues; practical conclusions; HE Shared Legal CSG.
This case has implications for HEIs, which may use arbitration as an alternative to lengthy and often expensive courts proceedings. The outcome of this case also clarifies the role of the application of anti-discrimination law, which is to protect the interest of employees who, unlike arbitrators, are often economically dependent on those who engage them.
In England and Wales, under section 254 to 259 of the Housing Act 2004, as amended, (the 2004 Act) subject to the exclusions set out in Schedule 14, a building or part of building is a ‘house in multiple occupation’ (HMO), if it meets one of a number of prescribed tests.
In Wincanton Group PLC v Stone and another UKEAT/011/12, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) highlighted a number of points for consideration by tribunals in assessing the fairness of a dismissal where an employee has received an earlier warning.
HEIs are often in a situation where they insource services for economic or other reasons. This case illustrates that in deciding if a service provision change has taken place the courts will take a pragmatic approach in comparing activities pre and post transfer.