The appellant challenged the decision that he had not been an employee of the respondent. He had worked for them first through an agency, and come to be closer to them, but was still not paid sick pay. He complained that the tribunal had decided he was not an employee without first listening to the evidence to see whether there was an employment contract implied.
Held: The tribunal had not clearly addressed the question of whether a contract existed. The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to a fresh tribunal to determine whether there was an implied contract of service between the applicant and the end-user.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Thorpe The President
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 417, Times 23-Apr-2003, [2003] ICR 1166, [2003] IRLR 423
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Carmichael and Another v National Power Plc HL 24-Jun-1999
Tour guides were engaged to act ‘on a casual as required basis’. The guides later claimed to be employees and therefore entitled by statute to a written statement of their terms of employment. Their case was that an exchange of correspondence . .
Cited by:
Cited – Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd v Dacas CA 5-Mar-2004
The applicant cleaner sought compensation for unfair dismissal. The issue was whether she was an employee of the respondents, of their client where she did her work, or was not an employee at all. She worked for an agency, who sent her out to . .
Cited – Cable and Wireless Plc v Muscat CA 9-Mar-2006
The worker was employed via an employment agency. The contract the company had was with the agency, and the agency had the contract with the worker. The worker claimed an implied contract of employment with the end-user.
Held: The end-user . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.180705