The applicant claimed that the respondent Council had discriminated against her. After complicated applications, leave to appeal was granted on limited grounds, but on appeal the applicant had been allowed to extend that appeal. Held: An appeal tribunal might use its case management powers to allow limited departure from the permitted grounds of appeal, only … Continue reading General Council of the Bar v Miriki: CA 21 Dec 2001
Employee, Worker or Self-Employed – Section 230, (B) Employment Rights Act 1996 The claimant was elected to office as a non-executive director of the first respondent; it was his case that he suffered detriments as a result of making protected disclosures and he sought to bring a claim before the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) under section … Continue reading Catt v English Table Tennis Association Ltd and Others: EAT 26 Aug 2022
Mrs Wallis was employed by the Ministry of Defence at the international school attached to SHAPE in Belgium. Mrs Grocott was employed by the Ministry in the British section of the Armed Forces North International School in the Netherlands. Both SHAPE and JFC are entities within the structure of NATO. They were recruited because they … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v Wallis and Grocott: CA 8 Mar 2011
bullock_norfolkEAT11 EAT RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant, a foster carer, was not a worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and 1999. Accordingly she could not claim the right to trade union representation pursuant to section 10 of the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Bullock v Norfolk County Council: EAT 24 Jan 2011
EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGESThe Claimant (who was a dentist) entered into a contract to provide dental services for the Respondent. The Employment Tribunal found that he was not an ’employee’ within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but that he was a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that provision. … Continue reading Community Dental Centres Ltd v Sultan- Darmon: EAT 12 Aug 2010
Uber drivers are workers The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers. Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The drivers accepted the control of tee Uber app: ‘Even if drivers are not obliged … Continue reading Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: CA 19 Dec 2018
The parties disputed whether Mr Smith had been an employee of or worker with the company so as to bring associated rights into play. The contract required the worker to provide an alternate worker to cover if necessary. Held: The company’s appeal failed. Mr Smith was a worker: ‘there were features of the contract which … Continue reading Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith: SC 13 Jun 2018
Solicitor Firm Member was a Protected Worker The solicitor appellant had been a member of the firm, a limited liability partnership. She disclosed criminal misbehaviour by a partner in a branch in Africa. On dismissal she sought protection as a whistleblower. This was rejected, it being found that a member of such a firm was … Continue reading Clyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof: SC 21 May 2014
The notice of appeal was served three days late. The Registrar and Morison J refused to extend time, the judge concluding that the explanation for the delay was honest and full, but not acceptable. Held: Permission to appeal was refused. Sir Christopher Staughton said: ‘I would only add this in relation to the merits. Mummery … Continue reading Aziz v Bethnal Green City Challenge Company Limited: CA 25 May 1999
The Court was asked whether a district judge qualifies as a ‘worker’ for the purpose of the protection given to whistle-blowers under Part IVA of the 1996 Act, and if not then was the absence of protection an infringement of her human rights. Held: As an office holder, she was neither employee nor worker, and … Continue reading Gilham v Ministry of Justice: SC 16 Oct 2019
Working Time Regulations Issue as to whether Appellant was worker within s230(3)(b) of Employment Rights Act 1996 . The Employment Tribunal did not address question of personal obligation to work. Remitted to same Tribunal – Sinclair Roche applied: adjustment to quantum to allow for argument that mileage allowance was expense not remuneration. Judges: The Honourable … Continue reading Valuecable Ltd (T/A Retail Outlet Design) v Berry: EAT 12 Jan 2005
The respondent in the employment tribunal operated the Mytaxi App. From 2014 the claimant worked full time in business on his own account as a black-cab (Hackney Carriage) driver in London. In February 2017 he downloaded the driver version of the respondent’s App. Apart from the odd trip in April he did not start to … Continue reading Johnson v Transopco Uk Ltd (Worker Status): EAT 18 Jan 2022
Smartphone App Contractors did so as Workers The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual leave and other workers’ rights; or whether, as Uber contended, … Continue reading Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: SC 19 Feb 2021
EAT Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing – The Tribunal erred in its approach to whether the Claimant (a nurse supplied by an agency to work at an end user) is a worker within the meaning of s.43K(1)(a)(ii) of the ERA 1996. The Claimant is not precluded from relying on s.43K by her employment status under s.230(3) … Continue reading McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust: EAT 21 Jul 2016
EAT Jurisdictional Points: Worker, Employee or Neither – Whether a GP, whose services were provided to the Trust through a Cooperative, was a worker under section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that he was not. Whether the Claimant had abandoned an argument that he was a worker under … Continue reading Suhail v Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals and Another: EAT 11 Jun 2015
The claimant (Bradley) and his brother (Ben) were the co-directors of and 40/60 shareholders in the respondent which was a small family company. Bradley worked as site manager at a company site. The brothers were each paid an equal ‘salary’ agreed between them (latterly pounds 1,500 per month) and had PAYE and NI deducted/paid in … Continue reading Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Ltd (Employee, Worker or Self Employed): EAT 8 Dec 2021
Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence establishments in Germany; under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951 … Continue reading Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited: HL 26 Jan 2006
At the outset of a Preliminary Hearing, the ELAAS representative raised concerns as to the Appellant’s litigation capacity. Adjourning the hearing on terms enabling the investigation of that issue, the EAT held that section 30(3) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (‘the ETA’) provides the EAT with the power to regulate its own procedure, subject … Continue reading Stott v Leadec Ltd (Human Rights : Litigation Capacity): EAT 20 Feb 2020
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neitherA Tribunal determined that a solicitor who had been an employee, but who then accepted remuneration calculated as a ‘profit share’, remained an employee and did not become a partner. It did so without express reference to the Partnership Act 1890, and was contended to be wrong in … Continue reading Williamson and Soden Solicitors v Briars: EAT 20 May 2011
Uber drivers are workers JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Worker ‘Worker status’ – section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’), regulation 36(1) Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘WTR’) and section 54(3) National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (‘NMWA’). ‘Working time’ – regulation 2(1) WTR The Claimants were current or former Uber … Continue reading Uber Bv v Aslam and Others (Jurisdictional Points – Worker, Employee or Neither : Working Time Regulations): EAT 10 Nov 2017
EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Whether establishedThe Claimant, who is a solicitor, became a salaried partner in a partnership, which became a Limited Liability Partnership, which was the Respondent. The Claimant became a Fixed Share Partner. He received a salary and a designated but a small share of the profits. He was also liable to … Continue reading Tiffin v Lester Aldridge Llp: EAT 16 Nov 2010
The claimant firm of solicitors sought an order requiring the defendant to amend her employment tribunal claim so as to accord with the partnership agreement to which she was party, and to submit to arbitration. The defendant said that statutory provisions said that her freedom to go to court could not be ousted, and that … Continue reading Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Winkelhof: QBD 22 Mar 2011
Car Cleaning nil-hours Contractors were Workers The company contracted with the claimants to work cleaning cars. The company appealed against a finding that contrary to the explicit provisions of the contracts, they were workers within the Regulations and entitled to holiday pay and associated benefits. The contracts were ‘nil hours’ contracts neither requiring nor entitling … Continue reading Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others: SC 27 Jul 2011
Car Valeters contracts misdescribed their Duties The claimants worked cleaning cars for the appellants. They said that as workers they were entitled to holiday pay. The appellant said they were self-employed. Held: The contract purported to give rights which were not genuine, and the employment judge was entitled to reach that conclusion. The contractors were … Continue reading Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others: CA 13 Oct 2009
The Court was asked as to: ‘the liability for Value Added Tax of a company which markets and arranges holiday accommodation through an on-line website. The outcome turns on the appropriate characterisation of the relationship between the company, the operators of the hotels, and the holiday-makers or their travel agents (which is an English law … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v Secret Hotels2 Ltd: SC 5 Mar 2014
Members of the tribunal must not simply consider whether they personally think that the dismissal is fair and they must not substitute their decision as to what was the right course to adopt for that of the employer. Their proper function is to determine whether the decision to dismiss the employee fell within the band … Continue reading Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones: EAT 29 Jul 1982
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS Worker, employee or neither Working outside the jurisdiction Whether LLP equity member was a limb (b) worker under section 230(3). Allowing Claimant’s appeal, she was. Applying Lawson v Serco, Duncombe (No. 2) and Ravat, on any view Employment Tribunal entitled to conclude that it had jurisdiction territorially to entertain both whistleblowing claim … Continue reading Clyde and Co Llp v Van Winkelhof: EAT 26 Apr 2012
Obligation to Perfom Work Personally was Critical This appeal concerns the status of a courier delivering goods by moped. The question on the appeal is whether an employment tribunal was entitled to find that the claimant, Mr Augustine, was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and, in … Continue reading Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine: CA 19 Oct 2021
The claimant was a solicitor partner with the appellant limited liability partnership at their offices in Tanzania. She disclosed what she believed to be money laundering by a local partner. She was dismissed. She had just disclosed her pregnancy and claimed also in sex discrimination. The company appealed findings as to jurisdiction saying that she … Continue reading Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Bates van Winkelhof: CA 26 Sep 2012
The Hospital Medical Group argued that Dr Westwood was in business on his own account as a doctor, in which he had three customers, the NHS for his services as a general practitioner, the Albany Clinic for whom he did transgender work, and the . .
EAT The Tribunal was asked whether the claimant was a worker within the meaning of the Regulations and so entitled to their protection in receiving holiday pay.
Held: The appropriate classification of a . .
The Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘the Respondent’) appealed the Employment Tribunal’s (‘the Tribunal’) conclusion that the Claimant, a panel member chair of its Fitness to Practice Committee, was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) . .
