The applicant was an agency worker with an employment agency.
Held: The end-user was under no legal obligation to pay the applicant and the applicant was under no legal obligation to work for the end-user. Control over the applicant by the end-user was explicable by virtue of the contract between the applicant and the agency, which made it unnecessary to imply a contract between the applicant and the end-user.
Elias J said: ‘The significance of mutuality is that it determines whether there is a contract in existence at all. The significance of control is that it determines whether, if there is a contract in place, it can properly be classified as a contract of service, rather than some other kind of contract.’
Judges:
Elias J
Citations:
[2002] UKEAT 1314 – 01 – 1111, [2003] ICR 471
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
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 – Drake v Ipsos Mori UK Ltd EAT 25-Jul-2012
drake_ipsosEAT2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Worker, employee or neither
The Claimant worked for the Respondent as a market researcher under a succession of individual assignments. The Employment Judge erred in law in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.203265
