Employment law cases

All items: Employment status

  • Employment status: Insufficient control meant that worker was not employee of agency

    Date:
    15 April 2001

    A person who found work through an employment agency and remained in that same job for more than two years was not employed by the agency, holds the Court of Appeal in Montgomery v Johnson Underwood Ltd.

  • Employment status: Client of employment agency had sufficient control to be employer of agency worker

    Date:
    15 January 2001

    In Motorola Ltd v Davidson and another, dealing solely with the issue of control, the EAT holds that a client of an employment agency had sufficient control over the worker assigned to it to sustain a finding that it was in fact the employer of the worker.

  • Employment status: Tour guides engaged on "casual as required basis" were not employees

    Date:
    1 January 2000

    In Carmichael and another v National Power plc, the House of Lords holds that two women who accepted a company's written offer of employment as tour guides "on a casual as required basis", and then worked as guides on invitation when they were available and chose to work, were not employees under contracts of employment.

  • Employment status: Controlling shareholder could also be employee

    Date:
    15 April 1999

    In Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bottrill, the Court of Appeal upholds an employment tribunal's finding that a controlling shareholder of a company could also be an employee of that company for the purposes of the employment protection legislation.

  • Employment status: Agency worker was "employee" for specific assignment

    Date:
    15 June 1997

    In McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment, the Court of Appeal holds that a temporary worker on the books of an employment agency may have the status of employee of the agency in respect of each assignment actually worked, notwithstanding that the same worker may not be entitled to employee status under his or her general terms of engagement.

  • Contracts of employment: Employment status in the safety context

    Date:
    1 October 1995

    In Lane v The Shire Roofing Co (Oxford) Ltd, the Court of Appeal holds that a roofer hired by a company for an individual roofing job was an employee, and so the company was liable to pay damages for the personal injury he suffered when he fell off his ladder whilst carrying out that work.

  • Contracts of employment: Agency worker was an employee

    Date:
    1 August 1995

    The EAT holds in McMeechan v Secretary of State for Employment and another that where a temporary worker's relationship with an employment agency or business is governed by a written contract, the employment status of that worker is dependent on the construction of the contractual terms.

  • Contracts of employment: Casual waiters not employees

    Date:
    23 August 1983

    An Industrial Tribunal's decision as to whether a contract is a contract of employment can only be overturned on appeal if the Tribunal misdirected itself in law or reached a perverse decision on the facts, the majority of the Court of Appeal concludes in the widely publicised case of O'Kelly and others v Trusthouse Forte Plc.

  • Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co

    Date:
    1 January 1978

    In Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co [1978] IRLR 31 CA, the Court of Appeal held that, whilst the parties to a contract cannot alter the truth of their relationship by putting a different label upon it, when it is ambiguous as to whether the employment is under a contract of employment or a contract for services, the terms of an agreement between the parties may be decisive as to what is the legal relationship.

  • Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance

    Date:
    31 December 1968

    In Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance [1968] 1 All ER 433 HC, the High Court held that a contract of service existed if three conditions were fulfilled, one of these being that the provisions of the contract should not be inconsistent with its being a contract of service. In this case the rights conferred and the duties imposed by the individual's contract with the company were not such as to make the contract one of service.

About this category

Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to employment status.