The EAT holds in Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v (1) Jarvis and others (2) Brentvine Ltd that an employment tribunal which expressly found that there was no contract, either written or oral, between a client company and a worker supplied to it by an employment agency, erred in law in going on to rule that the existence of factors consistent with a contract of employment subsisting, and the fact that the worker had worked continuously for the client company for nine years, made her an employee of the client company.
In MITIE Managed Services Ltd v French and others, the EAT holds that a contractual right to participate in an employer's profit-sharing scheme may, following a TUPE transfer, become a right to participate in a scheme of "substantial equivalence" only, if the right to continue participating in the original scheme is absurd, impossible or unjust.