Macalinden (T/A Charm Offensive) v Lazarov and Others: EAT 17 Oct 2014


EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employees or neither
The Employment Judge did not approach the question of whether the Claimants were ‘workers’ correctly and did not give sufficient reasons for this part of his decision. Cotswold Developments Construction Ltd v Williams [2006] IRLR 181, Hospital Medical Group Ltd v Westwood [2012] IRLR 834 and Bates van Winkelhof v Clyde and Co LLP and Anr [2014] IRLR 641 considered and applied.

David Richardson J
[2014] UKEAT 0453 – 13 – 1710
England and Wales
CitedClyde and Co Llp and Another v Bates van Winkelhof CA 26-Sep-2012
The claimant was a solicitor partner with the appellant limited liability partnership at their offices in Tanzania. She disclosed what she believed to be money laundering by a local partner. She was dismissed. She had just disclosed her pregnancy . .
CitedThe Hospital Medical Group Ltd v Westwood CA 24-Jul-2012
The Hospital Medical Group argued that Dr Westwood was in business on his own account as a doctor, in which he had three customers, the NHS for his services as a general practitioner, the Albany Clinic for whom he did transgender work, and the . .
CitedCotswold Developments Construction Ltd v Williams EAT 21-Dec-2005
EAT What is meant by ‘mutuality of obligations’ where the claim relies on the Working Time Regulations; whether finding that there was no mutuality of obligations was inconsistent with holding that the Claimant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.537760