-
- Date:
- 4 August 2011
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Supreme Court has affirmed that, where a party asserts that a written term does not reflect the reality of the agreement, tribunals and courts may look outside the terms to determine the true nature of the agreement.
-
- Date:
- 27 June 2011
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In X v Mid Sussex Citizens’ Advice Bureau and others [2011] EWCA Civ 28 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a volunteer at a Citizens’ Advice Bureau was not an employee for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and could not therefore claim disability discrimination when she was asked to stop her voluntary work.
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Date:
- 20 April 2011
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Tilson v Alstom Transport [2011] IRLR 169 CA, the Court of Appeal held that there was no basis for the employment tribunal to imply a contract of employment between an agency worker and the end user. The fact that the claimant had rejected offers of just such a permanent contract on more than one occasion was a powerful factor pointing away from an employment relationship.
-
- Date:
- 18 April 2011
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that a paid volunteer is not an employee for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 where there is no mutuality of obligation between the parties.
-
- Date:
- 1 July 2010
- Type:
- Employment law cases
Niki Walker, managing associate at Addleshaw Goddard, details the latest rulings.
-
- Date:
- 30 March 2010
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Muschett v HM Prison Service [2010] EWCA Civ 25 CA, the Court of Appeal held that an agency worker had neither a contract of employment nor a contract with the end user personally to carry out work. Accordingly, he could not bring complaints of unfair or wrongful dismissal, or of unlawful discrimination, against the end user.
-
- Date:
- 10 February 2010
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others [2010] IRLR 70 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a group of car valeters were employees, despite the fact that their written contracts with the valeting company stated that they were independent contractors, and contained clauses allowing "substitution of labour" and the "right to refuse work".
-
- Date:
- 19 May 2009
- Type:
- Employment law cases
In Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd v Szilagyi [2009] IRLR 365 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a purported contract for services - entered into by the worker as a prerequisite for being given work - was a sham, because it did not represent the parties' true intentions and expectations. The individual was an employee, not an independent contractor.
-
- Date:
- 8 April 2009
- Type:
- Employment law cases
The Court of Appeal had held that there is no reason in principle why a director and controlling shareholder cannot also be an employee.