Is this really a case of poor legislation writing and was it really meant to be worded like that? Did the scribe really intend to omit the phrase "in the building/premises/place" after the number of persons employed? I have a South African client which employs oodles of people in SA and two in a single office in Belfast. The legislation requires a recorded FRA. Now is that not a tad stupid?
I agree NT, and you have better stated what I was trying to get across in earlier postings.
I dont think it is in the spirit of the order to work in the way described above, because as you say, it would seem unfair.
However Civvy does put forward a strong argument that legally it could be construde as such in a court of law unless the RP has several companies deemed to be legally seperate.
I guess as always only a judge or jury could decide (?) Im not aware of any further guidance on how to interpret the legislation in this respect.(?)