In this industrial training levy case there was an appeal on a point of law against the imposition of the levy on a company, Labour Force Limited, which was engaged in the supply of labour to contractors in the construction industry, but not as an employment agency. The contractors paid Labour Force, who in turn paid the workers, but Labour Force exercised no control at all over the work done by them for the contractors, who had the right to terminate.
Held: The Industrial Tribunal had correctly concluded that there was no contract of any kind between the contractor and the workman. Implied contracts of service were not considered. As for Labour Force, it was held that the contracts between Labour Force, as principal, and the workers to do work for a third party, the contractor, were not contracts of service. They were described as contracts sui generis
[1970] 3 All ER 220, (1970) 5 ITR 290
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd v Dacas CA 5-Mar-2004
The applicant cleaner sought compensation for unfair dismissal. The issue was whether she was an employee of the respondents, of their client where she did her work, or was not an employee at all. She worked for an agency, who sent her out to . .
Cited – Massey v Crown Life Insurance Company CA 4-Nov-1977
massey_crownCA197711
Massey worked as Crown Life’s manager under 2 contracts, one a contract of employment, the other a contract of general agency. Tax and other contributions were deducted from wages paid under the former, while commission was paid under the agency . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.227042 br>