This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers contracts performed illegally.
The employment tribunal found that the claimant's contract of employment with her employer was illegal, on the basis that both parties had agreed that any additional hours she worked would be paid in cash so as to avoid tax.
In Enfield Technical Services Ltd v Payne; BF Components Ltd v Grace  EWCA Civ 393, the Court of Appeal held that a genuine error in the categorisation of employment status will not be enough to establish illegality where there has been no express or implied misrepresentation of the facts of the working arrangements.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that, in order for a contract to be tainted by illegality, there must be some form of misrepresentation by the parties.
This week's case of the week, provided by Addleshaw Goddard, covers dismissal over mistaken belief about immigration status.
In Klusova v London Borough of Hounslow  EWCA Civ 1127 CA, the Court of Appeal has held that a mistaken belief that an employee was being illegally employed could be a potentially fair reason for dismissal.
In Enfield Technical Services Ltd v Payne; Grace v BF Components Ltd EAT/0644/06, the EAT holds that the contracts of employment were not tainted by illegality because, although the parties had wrongly characterised them as contracts of self-employment, in neither case had the parties misrepresented to the authorities the facts of their relationship.
In Bakersfield Entertainment Ltd v Church and Stuart, the Employment Appeal Tribunal holds that the employment tribunal had erred in holding that the claimants' contracts were not illegal when they had agreed to a scheme whereby half their salary was paid to fictitiousservice providers and not declared for tax and national insurance purposes.
In Wheeler v Quality Deep Ltd (t/a Thai Royale Restaurant) the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal failed to apply the correct test for illegality of a contract set out in Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd.
In Soteriou v Ultrachem Ltd and others  IRLR 870 HC, the High Court held that the EAT had not erred in striking out the applicant's claim for wrongful dismissal on the basis that an employment tribunal had already determined on a claim for unfair dismissal that the applicant's contract of employment was unenforceable due to illegality and that, since the claim for wrongful dismissal involved the same contract, the EAT was bound by that finding.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to illegality of contract.