The company appealed against a finding that the respondent was its employee and not an independent contractor, and that its contract with him was a sham.
Held: The employer’s appeal succeeded. The EAT had erred: ‘there was plainly a procedural error in finding that ‘the entire contract agreement clause’ was a sham, without notice of the point to Launahurst either from Mr Larner or from the employment judge before or at the hearing. The point was not explored in evidence, in argument or in law. The upshot is that Launahurst has not had a hearing on a relevant issue decided against it.’ There were no findings of fact by the tribunal to support such a finding. There had already been three hearings on this matter, and the respondent had taken no part either at the EAT or at the CA. The evidential picture was more consistent with the respondent being an independent sub-cotractor.
Mummery LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 334
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others CA 13-Oct-2009
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 . .
Appeal from – Launahurst Ltd v Larner EAT 18-Aug-2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
For 13 years the Claimant worked installing double glazing for the Respondent. In 2004 he signed a ‘contract supply agreement’ though matters continued . .
Cited – Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd v Buckborough and Another EAT 10-Oct-2008
redrow_buckboroughEAT2008
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
WORKING TIME REGULATIONS: Worker / Holiday pay
As in Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd v Wright 2004 IRLR 720, the issue in this appeal was whether . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.406568