All grounds of appeal would be dismissed. The Tribunal had correctly analysed the contractual obligations between the parties, consistent with the principles set out in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others [2011] ICR 1157, SC and in Uber B.V. and others v Aslam and others [2021] UKSC 5 (albeit that the latter had not been decided at the time of the preliminary hearing). It had made no error of law in concluding that the terms of the written franchise agreement between each Appellant and the Respondent reflected the true agreement between the parties and that, properly construed, that agreement did not require either Appellant personally to perform the services for which it provided. Its having been common ground that personal performance was required in order to establish both employee and worker status, the Tribunal had been right to conclude that (1) the First Appellant had been neither an employee nor a worker for the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘the ERA’) and (2) the Second Appellant had been neither an employee nor a worker for the purposes of the ERA, or the Equality Act 2010.
The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE
[2021] UKEAT 2019-000259
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.670767