The claimant had been an ordained minister in the church. She sought to claim unfair dismissal. The Conference replied that she was not an employee entitled to make such a claim. Held: The claimant was an employee. Judges: Maurice Kay VP, Longmore LJJ, Sir David Keene Citations: [2011] EWCA Civ 1581, [2012] 2 WLR 1119, … Continue reading The President of The Methodist Conference v Preston: CA 20 Dec 2011

bullock_norfolkEAT11 EAT RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED The Employment Tribunal did not err in holding that the Claimant, a foster carer, was not a worker within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and 1999. Accordingly she could not claim the right to trade union representation pursuant to section 10 of the Employment Rights Act … Continue reading Bullock v Norfolk County Council: EAT 24 Jan 2011

EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGESThe Claimant (who was a dentist) entered into a contract to provide dental services for the Respondent. The Employment Tribunal found that he was not an ’employee’ within the meaning of section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 but that he was a ‘worker’ within the meaning of that provision. … Continue reading Community Dental Centres Ltd v Sultan- Darmon: EAT 12 Aug 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 … Continue reading Muschett v HM Prison Service: CA 2 Feb 2010

The claimant worked for the local authority under a series of contracts. The employer denied that she had been continuously employed and there was no ‘irreducible minimum mutual obligation necessary to create a contract of service’. There were times when she had no work. Held: Given the authorities there was ample reason to find a … Continue reading Cornwall County Council v Prater: CA 24 Feb 2006

Whether the claimant was a ‘worker’. Judges: Maurice KayJ Citations: [2001] UKEAT 1456 – 00 – 1212 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 230(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Employment Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.204676

EAT Jurisdictional Points : Worker, Employee or Neither – The claimant asserted the right not to be unfairly dismissed. She had been an ordained minister in Full Connection of the Methodist church. Held: Leave to appeal granted. Judges: Keith J Citations: [2010] UKEAT 0219 – 10 – 2411 Links: Bailii Statutes: Employment Rights Act 1996 … Continue reading Moore v The President of The Methodist Conference: EAT 24 Nov 2010

EAT Jurisdictional Points : Worker, Employee or Neither – WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Worker CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Whether established Employment status. The Claimant lodged a claim of unfair dismissal, age discrimination and a claim for holiday pay. The Respondent denied that he was an employee, arguing that he was a self-employed independent contractor. The … Continue reading Conroy v Scottish Football Association Ltd: EAT 12 Dec 2013

EAT CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Whether establishedThe Claimant, who is a solicitor, became a salaried partner in a partnership, which became a Limited Liability Partnership, which was the Respondent. The Claimant became a Fixed Share Partner. He received a salary and a designated but a small share of the profits. He was also liable to … Continue reading Tiffin v Lester Aldridge Llp: EAT 16 Nov 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS Worker, employee or neither Working outside the jurisdiction Whether LLP equity member was a limb (b) worker under section 230(3). Allowing Claimant’s appeal, she was. Applying Lawson v Serco, Duncombe (No. 2) and Ravat, on any view Employment Tribunal entitled to conclude that it had jurisdiction territorially to entertain both whistleblowing claim … Continue reading Clyde and Co Llp v Van Winkelhof: EAT 26 Apr 2012

Obligation to Perfom Work Personally was Critical This appeal concerns the status of a courier delivering goods by moped. The question on the appeal is whether an employment tribunal was entitled to find that the claimant, Mr Augustine, was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and, in … Continue reading Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine: CA 19 Oct 2021

A contract for services, which required the contractor to provide an alternate worker in case of sickness, could not be a contract of employment. Such a clause could not be said to require the services to be provided personally.
Mr Tanton . .

The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant made protected disclosures in respect of the introduction of a new rota system, which he reasonably believed posed a danger to the health and safety of patients, and to be made in the public interest. Subsequent to this, concerns raised by colleagues about his alleged conduct were referred … Continue reading Chatterjee v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust (Victimisation Discrimination – Protected Disclosure): EAT 23 Sep 2019

Jurisdictional Points – Worker, Employee or Neither The employment tribunal had properly found that the claimant was a ‘worker’ but not an ’employee’ within section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. There was no error of law or wrong approach to that issue. The tribunal had erred in deciding that the claimant was not … Continue reading Augustine v Econnect Cars Ltd: EAT 20 Dec 2019

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 offices to work. The court was called upon to give guidance … Continue reading Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd v Dacas: CA 5 Mar 2004

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of termination(1) Employment Judge erred in finding that the employer had caused the employee to make an error in his calculation of the three month time limit in failing to disabuse him of his mistake when there was no evidence of any misrepresentation or deliberation … Continue reading T Mobile (Uk) Ltd v Singleton: EAT 23 Mar 2011

Uber drivers are workers The claimant Uber drivers sought the status of workers, allowing them to claim the associated statutory employment benefits. The company now appealed from a finding that they were workers. Held: The appeal failed (Underhill LJ dissenting) The drivers accepted the control of tee Uber app: ‘Even if drivers are not obliged … Continue reading Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: CA 19 Dec 2018

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 company’s appeal failed. The ET was entitled to hold that Mr Muscat had been an … Continue reading Cable and Wireless Plc v Muscat: CA 9 Mar 2006

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason Judges: His Hon Judge Ansell Citations: UKEAT/644/03, [2004] UKEAT 0644 – 03 – 2301 Links: Bailii, EAT Cited by: Cited – Fecitt and Others v NHS Manchester EAT 23-Nov-2010 EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosureS.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that ‘A … Continue reading Virgo Fidelis Senior School v Kevin Boyle: EAT 11 Dec 2003

Smartphone App Contractors did so as Workers The court was asked whether the employment tribunal was entitled to find that drivers whose work was arranged through Uber’s smartphone application work for Uber under workers’ contracts and so qualify for the national minimum wage, paid annual leave and other workers’ rights; or whether, as Uber contended, … Continue reading Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others: SC 19 Feb 2021

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSALReasonableness of dismissalProcedural fairness/automatically unfair dismissalThe Employment Tribunal failed to consider the effect of S98A(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Had it done so it would have been bound to find that had the Respondent followed a fair dismissal procedure the Claimant would have been dismissed in any event. Judges: Serota QC … Continue reading Punch Pub Company Ltd v O’Neill: EAT 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 notice. RSA appealed against an order re-instating the case after it had been struck out. Held: … Continue reading RSA Consulting Ltd v Evans: CA 23 Jul 2010

EAT Contract of Employment : Itemised Pay Statement – Where a payment by way of salary or wages for a period is reduced by the recovery of an overpayment in a previous period, that reduction is a ‘deduction’ for the purposes of section 8 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The deduction and its purpose … Continue reading Ridge v Her Majesty’s Land Registry: EAT 23 Sep 2014

Mr Lawson was employed by Serco as a security supervisor at the British RAF base on Ascension Island, which is a dependency of the British Overseas Territory of St Helena. Mr Botham was employed as a youth worker at various Ministry of Defence establishments in Germany; under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951 … Continue reading Serco Ltd v Lawson; Botham v Ministry of Defence; Crofts and others v Veta Limited: HL 26 Jan 2006

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither The Employment Judge was entitled on the facts that she found to conclude that the Claimant was in business on his own account rather than an ’employee’ or ‘worker’ within the meaning of sections 47B, 230(1) and 230(3) Employment Rights Act 1996. Serota QC [2012] UKEAT 0416 … Continue reading Suhail v Herts Urgent Care: EAT 14 Nov 2012

The Claimant is a talented professional cyclist. The Respondent is a not-for-profit organisation that promotes and controls the sport of cycling in the UK. The Claimant entered into a written agreement with the Respondent, pursuant to which she . .

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 . .

EAT The Tribunal was asked whether the claimant was a worker within the meaning of the Regulations and so entitled to their protection in receiving holiday pay.
Held: The appropriate classification of a . .

The Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘the Respondent’) appealed the Employment Tribunal’s (‘the Tribunal’) conclusion that the Claimant, a panel member chair of its Fitness to Practice Committee, was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) . .