Now clearly, I'm no lawyer (much to the disappointment of my parents, obviously), but much of this claim seems pointless in the extreme.

I can sort of understand the union making a claim against the 'old' company, with a view to securing enhanced redundancy payments for the 99 staff that were made redundant when the administrator was appointed.

There's no question that staff weren't offered the usual consultation period, but, while distressing for the workers, surely this is normal practice when an administrator takes control at a business that it deems has no realistic chance of being traded as a going concern while buyers are sought, perhaps due to inadequate funds to pay bills and staff.

But I'll let that charge slide on the basis that it's simply the union doing what it does: trying to protect its members' interests.

However, making claims against the new owners of the label, commercial and machinery divisions of the failed company (Paragon Labels, Technoprint and Sessions Label Solutions respectively) makes absolutely no sense.

I appreciate that staff lost their jobs and only a fraction were taken on by the new businesses, but the point is that some jobs were saved and this should be a cause for celebration not castigation.

I just can't see how there is a case to answer and frankly, it appears, neither can anyone else.

As I said, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not privy to precise details of the allegations as the Notice of Claim logged with the Employment Tribunals is fairly scant in detail, so perhaps the companies did contravene some of the TUPE rules (although this seems unlikely under the circumstances).

But surely bringing this kind of case is not going to benefit anyone. All it does is give another reason for companies looking to legitimately acquire businesses out of administration to think again. And that's not going to do anyone any good, least of all the union's membership at large.

Darryl Danielli is editor of PrintWeek