EAT Jurisdictional Points – Worker, employee or neither
The Employment Judge erred in holding that the Claimant was not an employee when he was a 90% majority shareholder yet had a contract of employment as a salesman which was not a sham, and the parties conducted themselves in accordance with the contract. Applying the subsequently decided judgments in Nesbitt and Clark, the correct analysis of the relationship was that the Claimant was an employee for the purposes of the insolvency provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0177 – 07 – 1104
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266632
