James v London Borough of Greenwich: CA 5 Feb 2008

The court considered whether an agency worker could be an employee of the defendant. Mummery LJ said: ‘As illustrated in the authorities, there is a wide spectrum of factual situations. Labels are not a substitute for the legal analysis of the evidence. In many cases agency workers will fall outside the scope of the protection of the 1996 Act because neither the workers nor the end users were in any kind of express contractual relationship with each other and it is not necessary to imply one in order to explain the work undertaken by the worker for the end user.’
Mummery, Thomas, Lloyd LJJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 35, [2008] ICR 545, [2008] IRLR 302
England and Wales
ApprovedJames v Greenwich Council EAT 18-Dec-2006
EAT Contract of Employment – Definition of employee
The Appellant was supplied by an agency to carry out work for Greenwich Council. She had no express contract with the Council but she contended that there . .

Cited by:
CitedRSA Consulting Ltd v Evans CA 23-Jul-2010
The respondent worked as a consultant for the appellant through an intermediary agency. When the arrangement was terminated, she had made a claim alleging an unauthorised deduction from her wages in repect of a contractual period of one month’s . .
CitedMuschett v HM Prison Service CA 2-Feb-2010
The claimant had been employed through an employment agency to carry out work for the respondent. He appealed against dismissal of his appeal against a ruling that he was not a worker for the respondent under the 1996 Act. He said that the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 May 2021; Ref: scu.264100