Muschett 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 Employment judge had not given him appropriate assistance as a litigant in person.
Held: The appeal failed. As to the criticism of the judge Rimer LJ said: ‘There are . . limits to what a judge can and should do in order to assist [a litigant in person]. It is for the litigant himself to decide what case to make and how to make it, and what evidence to adduce and how to adduce it. It is not for the judge to give directions or advice on such matters. It is not his function to step into the arena on the litigant’s side and to help him to make his case . . It is not their role to engage in the sort of inquisitorial function that Mr Hopkin suggests or, therefore, to engage in an investigation as to whether further evidence might be available to one of the parties which, if adduced, might enable him to make a better case. Their function is to hear the case the parties choose to put before them, make findings as to the facts and to decide the case in accordance with the law.’
Thorpe, Wilson, Rimer LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 25, [2010] IRLR 451
Employment Rights Act 1996 230(1)
England and Wales
Appeal fromMuschett v HM Prison Service EAT 26-Aug-2008
Tribunal Chairman correct not to imply contract between agency worker and end user. . .
CitedLemas and Another v Williams CA 30-Apr-2009
The court considered the extent to which a judge having conduct of a civil trial had an obligation to assist a litigant in person in the conduct of his case. Rimer LJ said: ‘Mr Lemas represented himself and, like any litigant in person, he enjoyed a . .
CitedJames 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 . .
CitedJames 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 . .
ExplainedMensah v East Hertfordshire NHS Trust CA 10-Jun-1998
An industrial tribunal should be helpful to litigants to help establish clearly whether issues which had been raised on the papers were not being pursued. An employee claiming racial discrimination but not pursuing it at the tribunal was not allowed . .

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 . .
CitedStoke On Trent City Council v Savigar (Debarred) EAT 15-May-2015
EAT Unfair Dismissal – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity – UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Procedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissal
Though the Claimant’s complaint was that . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 February 2021; Ref: scu.396484