drake_ipsosEAT2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
The Claimant worked for the Respondent as a market researcher under a succession of individual assignments. The Employment Judge erred in law in holding that there was ‘no mutuality of obligation during the course of any individual assignment’. He based his conclusion principally upon a finding that the assignment could be terminated on either side without its being completed.
Held: the Employment Judge erred in law. There was a contract in respect of each assignment; there was ‘mutuality of obligation’, sufficient to create a contract of employment, even if the contract was terminable at will. McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment [1997] ICR 549 (CA) and Stephenson v Delphi Diesel Systems Ltd [2003] ICR 471 followed. Little v BMI Chiltern Hospital [2009] UKEAT/0021/09 not followed.
Richardson J
[2012] UKEAT 0604 – 11 – 2507
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment and Another EAT 23-Nov-1994
The applicant was a temporary worker on the books of an employment agency, which went into insolvent liquidation. He claimed that he had a contract of service with the agency. That formed the basis of his application to the Secretary of State under . .
Cited – McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment CA 11-Dec-1996
The respondent as a temporary worker was entitled to be treated as an employee of an agency within the contract governing the particular engagement where money was due when the agency went into liquidation. He was therefore able to claim against the . .
Cited – Little v BMI Chiltern Hospital EAT 24-Apr-2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
Hospital bank porter. Whether an employee? Absence of mutuality of obligations. Prater (CA) and N.W. Probation v Edwards (EAT) distinguished. Employment . .
Cited – Stephenson v Delphi Diesel Systems Ltd EAT 11-Nov-2002
The applicant was an agency worker with an employment agency.
Held: The end-user was under no legal obligation to pay the applicant and the applicant was under no legal obligation to work for the end-user. Control over the applicant by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.463160
