1. Water v The Mote Cricket Club: EAT upholds ET's decision that a cricket club groundsman operating through his own business was neither an employee nor a worker bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT… #ukemplaw
2. Mote employed a groundsman for many years until 2016. He had licence to live in residential accommodation as part of his contract. When he left, Mote engaged a self-employed contractor. At about that time, W obtained became shorthold tenant of the groundsman's property.
3. W was a member of the cricket club. In 2011, he set up a gardening & grounds business. 1 of his jobs was maintenance of another cricket pitch. When he ended the tenancy, he based his business at Mote & kept tools there (bringing in a shipping container to do so).
4. W was offered the groundsman role by Mote on a contractor basis. He wanted to be employed but reluctantly agreed. The contract required pitch maintenance & set out an expected minimum hrs per week in the summer months, 2/3 to be carried out in person, with fewer in the winter.
5. The contract also set out payment terms, with invoices for summer work spread over 8 months & winter work over 4. The contract made clear it was separate from the tenancy arrangement. There was a 3-month notice period for termination.
6. Following termination of the arrangement, W brought holiday & notice pay claims & latterly sought to amend to add an unfair dismissal claim. The EJ found W neither an employee nor a worker but self-employed contracting with Mote as a client.
7. The EAT dismissed W's appeal against that finding. 1 argument raised by W was that he was required to perform additional work without added pay, & that this showed control by Mote. HHJ Tayler disagreed - considering it doesn't point in any particular direction on status.
8. Other grounds were dealt with by the EAT pithily in dismissing them. I need not go through them here. 1 point of some quotable use to respondents to appeals is in the EAT's dismissal of the Meek grounds, noting they're so often raised & for good reason they so rarely succeed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Shittu v South London & Maudsley NHS: Important finding (obiter) that the loss of chance test remains the test re compensation for unfair/discrim dismissal & the counterfactual chance of a fair dismissal. Perry v Raley doesn't change that. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6202b0d0… #ukemplaw
2/ S was a complaints manager for SL&M NHS Trust. He'd been diagnosed with bowel cancer in 2009 & resigned in Aug 2016. He brought claims for constructive unfair dismissal, a couple of bases of automatic unfair dismissal & loads of disability discrim & victimisation claims.
3/ Ultimately of the very many claims brought, he succeeded on 2 claims re 1 act: he'd complained about not being paid when off work for a post-cancer check-up & complained also about a failure to investigate that complaint. It was 1 of the reasons he resigned.
1/ Arvunescu v Quick Release: An interesting consideration of s.112 EqA (aiding a contravention) & the width of COT3 wording, as well as an application of Cox v Adecco to find a s.112 claim albeit not expressly pleaded. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62029aca… #ukemplaw
2/ A worked for QR for a month before being dismissed. He brought a race discrim claim but that was ultimately compromised under a COT3 in 2018 with the following widely drafted term as to what was being compromised:
3/ Also in early 2018, A applied for a job with a wholly-owned subsidiary of QR. He was rejected. Subsequent to the COT3 being signed, A brought a victimisation claim against QR in re that rejection. A PH was held to consider whether the claim should be struck out.
1/ Wilkinson v DVSA: When provisions on reduction of contributory conduct are engaged, it's relevant to consider both the employer's & employee's blameworthy conduct in reaching the % reduction to be made. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/620516a7… #ukemplaw
2/ W was a driving examiner. Rules prohibited examiners from driving candidates' cars. There was also a procedure in place where an examiner was required to terminate a test early. When this happened, neither the candidate nor examiner could drive back to the test centre.
3/ W had to terminate a test early because the candidate's driving endangered public safety. This was on a country road over 4 miles from the test centre. W called the instructor to confirm he was insured to drive it & then drove back to the test centre.
1/ Alum v Thames Reach: Whilst an ET has very wide discretion re just & equitable extensions of times, it must consider all relevant factors. Considering incorrect dates for when efforts were made to send the ET1 meant the ET failed to consider relevant factors. #ukemplaw
2/ This was a case where the time limit for an EqA claim expired on 21.6. A 1st tried to email the claim on 5.6, which wasn't an accepted method of delivery. Then A presented her claim in person but forgot to put the ACAS EC number on it. The ET wrote to her rejecting the claim.
3/ The rejection letter was sent on 13.6. A said she received it the week of 17.6. A sent her correctly presented claim by post on 20.6 but it didn't arrive until 24.6, 3 days after the deadline. In not exercising the discretion, the ET held the period 13.6-24.6 was unexplained.
Brilliantly explained by @MichaelFordQC. Truly seismic implications and a landmark judgment. Pretty confident that I can't do any better than this. Here's a link to the judgment: bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/… #ukemplaw
And not only does Michael seek to use his article to educate us on holiday pay law, but also on cycling lingo. For the uninitiated, a palmares is a list of races a cyclist has won!
Below I seek simply to identify some of the key parts of the judgment, as so eloquently already explained in Michael's article.
1st, the 2 ways parties can rely on the CJEU position on the rights under the WTD where domestic legislation doesn't provide the same rights:
1/ Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital v Poullis: EAT reinforces the need for a material change in circumstances or a mistatement of fact before an EJ can alter a previous EJ's order - in this case to list a PH for a potential deposit order app'n.
2/ The judgment is also instructive on the EAT view of parties' failure to sort the pleadings issues before the PH, the dangers of asking for F&BP & the ill-fated practice of fixing further PHs anticipating potential applications that might be made in the future.
3/ The case involves unfair & wrongful dismissal, including a s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim. Across PHs, the claim was amended & the disclosures & detriments expanded, but amendments were allowed as an EJ didn't consider it to add new matters to the pleadings.