Oxford University responded that they were not Humphreys' employers at the time of the transfer, because his claim of constructive dismissal effectively meant he had already resigned, and was thus no longer an "employee".
In approaching the proper construction of the Regulations, it seems to me essential to bear in mind the purpose and content of the Directive as elucidated in the decisions of the European Court.
In that respect it is clear that, as earlier set out (see paragraph 8 above), the purpose of the Directive is the protection of the employee by enabling him, upon transfer, to enjoy the same terms and conditions of employment as formerly.
[...] if Mr Goudie's primary case were accepted, it would produce a surprising and unwelcome trap for the unwary, whereby an employee who, like the claimant in this case, objects for substantial reasons to the transfer of his employment, formally records such objection in advance, and purports to accept the termination of the employer as a constructive dismissal under paragraph 5, finds that he has thus "elected" a course which provides no remedy and has disenfranchised himself from any right of action in respect of such dismissal.
I cannot think that such was the intention of Parliament at the time of its amendment of the Regulations or that, in truth, it contemplated that it was doing other than preserve the common law right of the employee to a remedy in the circumstances set out.