Transfer of Business and Redundancy Entitlement?

My current employer is planning on retiring soon and has put his business up for sale. It's a small business and I've been with them for 20+ years. I've no interest in working for the prospective new owner and considered this an opportunity to take redundancy.

My reasoning for this is, as my employer is retiring and will obviously cease to be my employer, he has effectively terminated my contract with him and redundancy would be the next logical progression.

However, it seems I may be mistaken in this assumption. After a little online research, it appears I have no choice.. apart from resigning and sacrificing 20 odd years of redundancy entitlements.. than to accept my contract being included in this 'transfer of business' assets.

The only thing I could find online that relates to my situation is this from 2009:

Employee’s Refusal to Transfer With a Business Is Resignation, Not Redundancy

"Employees who refuse to transfer to a new employer when the business they are employed by is being transferred should be considered to have resigned from their positions and are not eligible for redundancy payments, the Irish High Court has ruled in Symantec Limited v Lyons & Leddy.

The judgment is under appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Justice Edwards on the High Court stated that if the Irish legislature had wanted the employee’s relationship with the transferor to continue after the transfer so as to facilitate an employee in making a claim for redundancy, it could have enacted legislation to that effect.

The Acquired Rights Directive2 provides Member States with the option to put such legislation in place. However, the Irish legislature has not done so. Accordingly, Judge Edwards concluded that he was satisfied that it was not possible for the two employees in question, who had refused to transfer, to make a redundancy claim against the transferor, Symantec Limited.

It is settled law that an employee cannot be forced to transfer. Prior to the Symantec decision, however, there was a question as to whether the refusing employee had effectively resigned by virtue of his/her refusal to transfer or whether the employee was entitled to a redundancy payment because the transferor is no longer carrying out the work for which the employee was employed. In the Symantec case, Mr. Justice Edwards stated emphatically that in a transfer under the Regulations, "...it does not follow that if an employee decides not to transfer a situation of redundancy automatically arises vis-à-vis the transferor.” He went on to state that “It cannot do so because the fact that an employee objects to the transfer does not of itself have the effect of negativing the transfer. It is just that an employee is not obliged to continue his employment relationship with the transferee”."

Apologies for the lengthy copy and paste.. just trying to provide clarity on my situation.

I would really appreciate any input from those that have found themselves in a similar situation and if you have, how did you fare?

Perhaps there has been an amendment to the legislation that I'm unaware of. If so, please enlighten me.