Tilson v Alstom Transport: CA 19 Nov 2010

The parties disputed whether the claimant agency worker was in law the employee of the respondent.
Held: The test was whether it was necessary to infer such a contract to explain the conduct of the parties (Elias LJ). The EAT were right to include that, applying the correct test, the tribunal could not have reached a different result from the one that they did.
Arden, Elias, Pitchford LLJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1308, [2011] IRLR 169
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoAlstom Transport v Tilson EAT 4-Dec-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
The Employment Tribunal refused an application by the respondent employer to join two other respondents. This was made at the . .
Appeal fromAlstom Transport v Tilson EAT 11-Nov-2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
The Employment Judge was wrong to decide a contractual document was bogus so opening the way for a finding in the Claimant’s favour that he had an . .
CitedDobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd CA 14-May-1984
The employee worked as a security officer for the appellant, which was in turn employed by the respondent to provide security for an airport controlled by the Merseyside City Council. The Council had the right of approval of any employee of the . .

Cited by:
CitedF and G Cleaners v Saddington and Others EAT 16-Aug-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Mitigation of loss
The Claimants worked for Respondent 1 who supplied window cleaning services under contract to a local authority. The contract was subject to a re-tendering process; . .
ConsideredBurrell v Micheldever Tyre Services Ltd CA 23-May-2014
Maurice Kaye LJ considered the observations of Elias LJ in the case of Tilson v Alstom Transport and the impact of Jafri, saying: ‘However, even within the confines of the conventional approach, the Employment Appeal Tribunal can contain its . .
CitedWay v Spectrum Property Care Ltd CA 22-Apr-2015
The appellant had been dismissed after using the company email to forward an inappropriate email in breach of the company’s policies. Later he was disciplined for making an appointment in breach of the company’s procedures. He again misused the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 March 2021; Ref: scu.426039