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 notice. RSA appealed against an order re-instating the case after it had been struck out.
Held: The appeal was dismissed, though with doubts as to its prospect for eventual success. To establish a claim she had to be a worker within section 230. The only possible conclusion that could be reached simply focussing on the contractual documents is that the claimant had no contractual relationship of any kind with RSA. However a direct contract might have been implied by the circumstances and the parties’ behaviour. The employment judge may have limited himself to the documentation, and had therefore erred.
Judges:
Lloyd, Etherton, Elias LJJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 866, [2011] ICR 37
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Rights Act 1996 23 230
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
Appeal from – Evans v Parasol Ltd and Another EAT 23-Jul-2009
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Striking-out/dismissal
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Agency relationships
Striking out of agency worker’s claim for outstanding wages inappropriate in the light of the legal . .
Cited – James 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 . .
Cited – Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust CA 7-Mar-2007
The employer had applied to strike out their employee’s claim for unfair dismissal, and also sought a deposit from the claimant. The claim had been re-instated by the EAT.
Held: A claim should not be struck out where, as here, there were facts . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.421038
