The respondent was employed by the appellant. He was resident in GB, and was based here, but much work was overseas. At the time of his dismissal he was working in Libya. The company denied that UK law applied. He alleged unfair dismissal. Held: The company’s appeal failed. The details that he was dismissed by … Continue reading Ravat v Halliburton Manufacturing and Services Ltd: SC 8 Feb 2012
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
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:  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
The Court was asked whether a district judge qualifies as a ‘worker’ for the purpose of the protection given to whistle-blowers under Part IVA of the 1996 Act, and if not then was the absence of protection an infringement of her human rights. Held: As an office holder, she was neither employee nor worker, and … Continue reading Gilham v Ministry of Justice: SC 16 Oct 2019
The fact that a director held a majority shareholding in a company was not enough of itself to say he was not an employee. It is an important factor, but the tribunal must look at all the factors. The tribunal having decided that the director’s service agreement was not a sham, it was inevitable they … Continue reading Connolly v Sellers Arenascene Ltd: CA 2 Feb 2001
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:  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
Jurisdictional Points: Worker, Employee or Neither – The Employment Judge made no error of law in concluding that District Judges are office-holders and do not also work under a contract of employment or for services. Judges: Simler DBE P J Citations:  UKEAT 0087 – 16 – 3110,  ICR 404,  IRLR 23 Links: … Continue reading Gilham v Ministry of Justice: EAT 31 Oct 2016
Minister was not an employee The claimant asserted unfair dismissal. The Conference said that as an ordained minister she was not an employee, and was outwith the jurisdiction of such a claim. Held: The Conference’s appeal succeeded (Baroness Hale dissenting). The essence of the arrangement between the Conference and a minister lay in the constitution … Continue reading Methodist Conference v Preston: SC 15 May 2013
The claimants, Uber taxi service contractors, claimed to be ‘workers’ with associated employment rights. Held: They were such.  EW Misc B68 (ET) Bailii, Reasons Employment Rights Act 1996 230(3)(b), Working Time Regulations 1998 36(1), National Minimum Wage Act 1998 England and Wales Employment Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.571017
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 JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neitherA Tribunal determined that a solicitor who had been an employee, but who then accepted remuneration calculated as a ‘profit share’, remained an employee and did not become a partner. It did so without express reference to the Partnership Act 1890, and was contended to be wrong in … Continue reading Williamson and Soden Solicitors v Briars: EAT 20 May 2011
Uber drivers are workers JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Worker ‘Worker status’ – section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’), regulation 36(1) Working Time Regulations 1998 (‘WTR’) and section 54(3) National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (‘NMWA’). ‘Working time’ – regulation 2(1) WTR The Claimants were current or former Uber … Continue reading Uber Bv v Aslam and Others (Jurisdictional Points – Worker, Employee or Neither : Working Time Regulations): EAT 10 Nov 2017
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
Car Valeters contracts misdescribed their Duties The claimants worked cleaning cars for the appellants. They said that as workers they were entitled to holiday pay. The appellant said they were self-employed. Held: The contract purported to give rights which were not genuine, and the employment judge was entitled to reach that conclusion. The contractors were … Continue reading Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others: CA 13 Oct 2009
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
Reverend Sharpe applied for the post of Rector of Teme Valley South. The right to present (or nominate) a member of the clergy to this living was vested in Mr and Mrs Miles but a person could not be nominated without the Bishop’s approval, which was . .
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 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. . .
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 . .
EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGES
The 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 . .
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 parties disputed whether Mr Smith had been an employee of or worker with the company so as to bring associated rights into play. The contract required the worker to provide an alternate worker to cover if necessary. Held: The company’s appeal failed. Mr Smith was a worker: ‘there were features of the contract which … Continue reading Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith: SC 13 Jun 2018
Solicitor Firm Member was a Protected Worker The solicitor appellant had been a member of the firm, a limited liability partnership. She disclosed criminal misbehaviour by a partner in a branch in Africa. On dismissal she sought protection as a whistleblower. This was rejected, it being found that a member of such a firm was … Continue reading Clyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof: SC 21 May 2014
The professor had sought time off to represent another lecturer claiming race discrimination against the University. The University said that her behaviour created a conflict of interest with the University. She continued and herself claimed victimisation. After the case failed, she was herself suspended, and her email account searched from which further disciplinary charges were … Continue reading Fosh v Cardiff University: EAT 23 Jan 2008
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
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed. Held: The appeal failed (Lord Carnworth dissenting). That the exact situation might not have … Continue reading The United States of America v Nolan: SC 21 Oct 2015
The defendant claimed that he had gone absent without leave from the RAF as a conscientous objector. Held: The defendant had not demonstrated by complaint to the RAF that he did object to service in Iraq. In some circumstances where there was no procedure to make his objection known, the failure to do so might … Continue reading Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal Court: Admn 7 Oct 2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason Judges: His Hon Judge Ansell Citations: UKEAT/644/03,  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
EAT Two employees had fought at work. One had an expired formal written warning on his record. It had been reduced on appeal from a final warning. His disciplinary offence was of a different nature than the later misconduct. He was dismissed The procedure, modelled on the ACAS Code of Practice, provided that the formal … Continue reading UK Coal Mining Ltd v Raby: EAT 30 Jan 2003
Working Time Regulations Issue as to whether Appellant was worker within s230(3)(b) of Employment Rights Act 1996 . The Employment Tribunal did not address question of personal obligation to work. Remitted to same Tribunal – Sinclair Roche applied: adjustment to quantum to allow for argument that mileage allowance was expense not remuneration. Judges: The Honourable … Continue reading Valuecable Ltd (T/A Retail Outlet Design) v Berry: EAT 12 Jan 2005
The respondent in the employment tribunal operated the Mytaxi App. From 2014 the claimant worked full time in business on his own account as a black-cab (Hackney Carriage) driver in London. In February 2017 he downloaded the driver version of the respondent’s App. Apart from the odd trip in April he did not start to … Continue reading Johnson v Transopco Uk Ltd (Worker Status): EAT 18 Jan 2022
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 (Victimisation Discrimination: Protected Disclosure) A Specialist Registrar in Medical Training worked under a contract of employment with Lewisham NHS Trust. He made disclosures about patient safety, and repeated them to Health Education England (‘HEE’) who arranged his training placements, were responsible for paying a substantial part of his salary to Lewisham, and who regularly … Continue reading Day v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and Another: EAT 9 Mar 2016
EAT Jurisdictional Points: Worker, Employee or Neither – Whether a GP, whose services were provided to the Trust through a Cooperative, was a worker under section 230(3)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996. The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that he was not. Whether the Claimant had abandoned an argument that he was a worker under … Continue reading Suhail v Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals and Another: EAT 11 Jun 2015
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
The parties had arbitrated their dispute in London under a bilateral investment treaty between the US and Ecuador. The republic sought to appeal the arbitration. The applicant now appealed an order that the English High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The treaty was intended to encourage bilateral trading … Continue reading Occidental Exploration and Production Company vRepublic of Ecuador: CA 9 Sep 2005
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 neitherDISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – DisabilityAn Employment Tribunal dismissed claims for holiday pay and unfair dismissal apparently on the basis that the Claimant was not a worker within the Working Time Regulations nor an employee within s.230 Employment Rights Act 1996. The principal reason for doing so was a lack … Continue reading Dakin v Brighton Marina Residential Management Company Ltd and Another (Disability Discrimination : Disability): EAT 26 Apr 2013
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  UKEAT 0416 … Continue reading Suhail v Herts Urgent Care: EAT 14 Nov 2012
The claimant firm of solicitors sought an order requiring the defendant to amend her employment tribunal claim so as to accord with the partnership agreement to which she was party, and to submit to arbitration. The defendant said that statutory provisions said that her freedom to go to court could not be ousted, and that … Continue reading Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Winkelhof: QBD 22 Mar 2011
Damages or removal of coal under land User damages were awarded for the unauthorised removal of coal from beneath the appellant’s land, even though the site was too small for the appellant to have mined the coal himself. The appellant was also awarded damages for the damage done to the houses on the surface. If … Continue reading Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co: HL 13 Feb 1880
Car Cleaning nil-hours Contractors were Workers The company contracted with the claimants to work cleaning cars. The company appealed against a finding that contrary to the explicit provisions of the contracts, they were workers within the Regulations and entitled to holiday pay and associated benefits. The contracts were ‘nil hours’ contracts neither requiring nor entitling … Continue reading Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and Others: SC 27 Jul 2011
fahey_plymouthEAT2012 EAT UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM WAGESThe Respondent deducted sums from the Claimant’s pay during her notice period in respect of incapacity benefit which it assumed she would be receiving. However, before the Tribunal the Respondent did not establish any statutory or contractual requirement or authority for the deductions (see section 13 of the Employment Rights … Continue reading Fahey v Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust: EAT 23 Apr 2012
The Court was asked as to: ‘the liability for Value Added Tax of a company which markets and arranges holiday accommodation through an on-line website. The outcome turns on the appropriate characterisation of the relationship between the company, the operators of the hotels, and the holiday-makers or their travel agents (which is an English law … Continue reading Revenue and Customs v Secret Hotels2 Ltd: SC 5 Mar 2014
The claimant was a solicitor partner with the appellant limited liability partnership at their offices in Tanzania. She disclosed what she believed to be money laundering by a local partner. She was dismissed. She had just disclosed her pregnancy and claimed also in sex discrimination. The company appealed findings as to jurisdiction saying that she … Continue reading Clyde and Co Llp and Another v Bates van Winkelhof: CA 26 Sep 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) . .
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. . .
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 . .
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 . .
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 . .
Mrs Wallis was employed by the Ministry of Defence at the international school attached to SHAPE in Belgium. Mrs Grocott was employed by the Ministry in the British section of the Armed Forces North International School in the Netherlands. Both . .
Our law-index is a substantial selection from our database. Cases here are restricted in number by date and lack the additional facilities formerly available within lawindexpro. Please do enjoy this free version of the lawindex. Case law does not ‘belong’ to lawyers. Judgments are made up of words which can be read and understood (if … Continue reading law index