• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Agency worker not an employee, rules Court of Appeal

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Agency worker not an employee, rules Court of Appeal

    source: 'Looking and acting like an employee' didn't make him one ? The Register

    There was no need to imply a direct contract between an agency worker and an employer just because the worker's conditions did not exactly match those described in the agency agreement, the Court of Appeal has said.

    The fact that the worker was fully integrated into the employer's business and asked permission to take holidays does not necessarily mean that he was an employee, the Court has found.
    Did we already do this?
    Originally posted by MaryPoppins
    I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
    Originally posted by vetran
    Urine is quite nourishing

    #2
    'looking and acting like an employee' didn't make him one

    'Looking and acting like an employee' didn't make him one

    If this had been an IR35 case then who's taking bets that he would have been deemed to be an employee?
    Coffee's for closers

    Comment


      #3
      http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...rt-appeal.html

      Shall we use General or Legal? I'm happy for mods to merge mine into yours if people want.
      Originally posted by MaryPoppins
      I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
      Originally posted by vetran
      Urine is quite nourishing

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by d000hg View Post
        http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...rt-appeal.html

        Shall we use General or Legal? I'm happy for mods to merge mine into yours if people want.
        bin this one... I was going to put it into Legal but thought it more of general interest given that the idiot was trying to sue for unfair dismissal, hardly a contractor mindset!
        Coffee's for closers

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post
          bin this one... I was going to put it into Legal but thought it more of general interest given that the idiot was trying to sue for unfair dismissal, hardly a contractor mindset!
          Was he paying his IR35 taxes?

          Comment


            #6
            May not have been the most sensible way for a contractor to behave but he went nuclear and it looks like the result is in our favour.

            Any 'Real' experts care to comment?

            Goody Goody.
            Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

            Comment


              #7
              There has already been a case where a contractor (fearing an IR35 investigation coming from an ongoing PAYE enquiry), took his then 'employer' to an unfair dismissal tribunal. He lost. Strangely, his PAYE enquiry ended without turning into a full blown IR35 enquiry.

              I'm pretty surprised that this hasn't been used more often. Certainly works as a defence. There are loads of cases of unfair dismissal by alledged contract staff where you would think the 'employee' would win, but they rarely do. Employment tribunals tend to take the 'contract staff, on contracts, are NOT employees' view even if they look like it in every other sense. Strange how they can use the same facts but get the opposite conclusion in IR35 cases.
              When freedom comes along, don't PISH in the water supply.....

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by TestMangler View Post
                There has already been a case where a contractor (fearing an IR35 investigation coming from an ongoing PAYE enquiry), took his then 'employer' to an unfair dismissal tribunal. He lost. Strangely, his PAYE enquiry ended without turning into a full blown IR35 enquiry.

                I'm pretty surprised that this hasn't been used more often. Certainly works as a defence. There are loads of cases of unfair dismissal by alledged contract staff where you would think the 'employee' would win, but they rarely do. Employment tribunals tend to take the 'contract staff, on contracts, are NOT employees' view even if they look like it in every other sense. Strange how they can use the same facts but get the opposite conclusion in IR35 cases.
                The Labour government always maintained that contractors being an employee for unfair dismissal cases was different to being an employee for IR35. Different rules. That was part of the government's charm.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post
                  bin this one... I was going to put it into Legal but thought it more of general interest given that the idiot was trying to sue for unfair dismissal, hardly a contractor mindset!
                  Merged it anyway.
                  Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
                    The Labour government always maintained that contractors being an employee for unfair dismissal cases was different to being an employee for IR35. Different rules. That was part of the government's charm.
                    And recognising that, they gave IR35 caught contractors that 5% allowance to compensate...
                    Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X