Employment status/agency worker: Worker not employee of agency

In Brook Street (UK) Ltd v Dacas, the Court of Appeal holds:

• Where an agency's obligations to a worker (who provides his or her services to an end-user) do not extend to an obligation to continue providing that worker with work, and where that worker is under no obligation to continue working or to accept any placement offered to them by the agency, there can be no mutuality of obligations between those parties.
• Control will also be lacking, where this is exercised on a day-to-day basis by the end-user and not by the agency, and the only possible conclusion is that there can be no contract of service between the agency and the worker (on those facts) in such a triangular relationship.
• In future cases, it may well be that a contract of service should be inferred between the worker and the end-user. Tribunals hearing such claims should consider this possibility, and whether such a contract can indeed be implied will depend upon the facts of each case. A highly relevant factor in that examination will be the determination of which party is vicariously liable for the actions of the worker, for the purposes of tortious claims in respect of those actions.