Topics

Employment status

New and updated

  • Date:
    19 October 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others

    The Court of Appeal has upheld an employment tribunal decision that a group of car valeters were employees despite the existence of a written agreement that described them as independent contractors and that allowed them to substitute others to carry out their duties. The written agreement did not accurately reflect the agreement between the parties, and the requirements for an employment contract were satisfied.

  • Date:
    19 May 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    Employment status: "Sham" contract for services did not reflect parties' true relationship

    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:
    28 April 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    Case of the week: Controlling shareholders and employment status

    This week's case of the week, provided by Thomas Eggar, covers controlling shareholders and employment status.

  • Date:
    8 April 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    Secretary Of State For Business, Enterprise And Regulatory Reform v Neufeld and another

    The Court of Appeal had held that there is no reason in principle why a director and controlling shareholder cannot also be an employee.

  • Date:
    4 March 2009
    Type:
    Law reports

    Protectacoat Firthglow Ltd v Szilagyi

    The Court of Appeal has upheld an employment tribunal finding that an individual was an employee, despite the existence of a services agreement. For such an agreement to be a sham, there is no need for there to be an intention to deceive a third party.

  • Date:
    22 November 2008
    Type:
    Law reports

    Employment status: Substitution of labour clause was a sham as it did not reflect the parties' true intentions

    In Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd v Buckborough and another EAT/0528/07, the EAT held that the real intention behind a contract between Redrow Homes and bricklayers on its construction site was that the bricklayers would personally perform the work. The express provision that there was no personal obligation was a sham. Accordingly, they were "workers" and entitled to holiday pay.

  • Date:
    23 July 2008
    Type:
    Law reports

    Beck v London Borough of Camden and another

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal, applying the Court of Appeal decision in James v London Borough of Greenwich, has held that an agency worker was not an employee of an end user.

  • Date:
    27 June 2008
    Type:
    Law reports

    Employment status: Tribunal decision that agency workers were employed by agency insufficiently reasoned

    In Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak and others [2008] EWCA Civ 430, the Court of Appeal remitted to a fresh tribunal the issue of whether or not Polish nationals engaged by an agency to work as meat packers for a third party were employees of the agency.

  • Date:
    27 May 2008
    Type:
    Law reports

    Case of the week: employment status

    This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers employment status.

  • Date:
    8 May 2008
    Type:
    Law reports

    Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak and others

    The Court of Appeal has overturned an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision approving a tribunal ruling that an employment agency had entered into contracts of employment with workers.