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 particular, that he was a person who undertook to perform work or services personally pursuant to a contract with the respondent, Stuart Delivery Limited.
Held: The company’s appeal failed: ‘The employment tribunal was entitled on the facts as found by it to conclude that the claimant was a worker within the meaning of section 230(3)(b) of the Act and the other relevant legislation. The tribunal was entitled to conclude that he performed the courier services under a contract to do the work or provide the services personally and that the respondent was not the client or customer of any business undertaking carried on by the claimant.’
 EWCA Civ 1514
Employment Rights Act 1996 230(3)(b)
England and Wales
Cited – Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith EAT 21-Nov-2014
EAT Contract of Employment : Whether Established – WORKING TIME REGULATIONS – Worker . .
Cited – Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith CA 10-Feb-2017
The plumbers appealed against a finding that the plumbers it employed were workers and entitled toassociated benefits.
Sir Terence Etherton MR summarised the case law and said: ‘ I would summarise as follows the applicable principles as to the . .
Cited – Pimlico Plumbers Ltd and Another v Smith SC 13-Jun-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 . .
Cited – Clyde and Co LLP and Another v van Winkelhof SC 21-May-2014
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 . .
Cited – Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine EAT 5-Dec-2019
Jurisdictional Points – Worker, Employee or Neither – CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – Whether established
The Tribunal had not erred in concluding that when Mr Augustine, a delivery courier, was undertaking fixed hours ‘slots’ for the Respondent, . .
Cited – Uber Bv and Others v Aslam and Others SC 19-Feb-2021
Smartphone App Contractors were 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.668621