Originally posted by DirtyDog
View Post
No CNL did not have to state either way. The statute defines what an Employment Business is or isn't, the Judge made the determination that CNL wasn't an Employment Business in this particular instance in line with the agreements, statute, precedent etc.
Unfortunately, you seem to be missing the point.
As I have said previously, it is the individual transaction coupled with mixed law and provable facts that can determine a judgement.
And regardless of the judges decision, the contractor in question opted out and the hirer was fully aware that the contractor had opted out, which in the end proved immaterial as the judge decided that the contractor had not given "the predominant control to the hirer"
Does that answer your question ?
If CNL had have been asked, it would have said that it does not provide resources whom 'act "under the control" of any other persons' in accordance with the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and subsequent precedents which determine the level of control necessary. The statute makes a clear use of the definite article with regards to "THE control" so as to determine the pre-dominate position. If CNL would have done so, it would in the opinion of CNL be a significant step in the supply of "disguised employees" and the corresponding Intermediaries legislation.
Comment