Where the only relevant material was documentary the question whether A is employed by B or C is a matter of law but otherwise is a mixed question of law and fact: ‘This description (a mixed question of law and fact) does not, however, in my judgment mask the reality that the answer to the question is determined by the determination and evaluation of the relevant material. This is the task of the Industrial Tribunal and is not for either the Appeal Tribunal or this Court. Neither can interfere with the resolution of an issue of fact unless the resolution contains an explicit or implicit misdirection in law . . In the present case therefore the question is not whether the Industrial Tribunal were ‘wrong’ but whether their conclusion betrays a self-misdirection.’
Judges:
Mann LJ, Lord Donaldson MR
Citations:
[1991] IRLR 518
Cited by:
Cited – Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority CA 18-Dec-1997
A nurse was employed under a contract, under which there was no mutuality of obligation; she could refuse work and employer need offer none. This meant that there was no employment capable of allowing an unfair dismissal issue to arise.
Sir . .
Cited – Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd CA 9-Mar-2001
A worker who had strictly been employed by an agency but on a long term placement at a customer, claimed to have been unfairly dismissed by the customer when that placement ended.
Held: To see whether she was an employee the tribunal should . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.194298
