Lutz v Ryanair DAC & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 849 (08 July 2025)

Lutz v Ryanair DAC & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 849 (08 July 2025)

Where a worker is supplied by an agency to an end-user under an express contract with the agency, and the arrangement is not a sham, the worker is employed by the agency for the purposes of the CAWTR and AWR, notwithstanding that the end-user exercises operational control. The claimant was therefore entitled to bring claims against MCG for annual leave and equal treatment.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 849
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jason Lutz; Respondent/appellant: Ryanair DAC; Respondent/appellant: Storm Global Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Agency Workers, Employment Status, Annual Leave Entitlement, Equal Treatment, Tripartite Employment Relationships
Employment Law European Union Law Agency Workers Employment Status Annual Leave Entitlement Equal Treatment Tripartite Employment Relationships

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Lutz

Claimant/respondent

Ryanair DAC

Respondent/appellant

Storm Global Ltd

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a 'crew member' employed by MCG within the meaning of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (CAWTR)
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was an 'agency worker' supplied to work temporarily for Ryanair under the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (AWR)

Ratio Decidendi

Where a worker is supplied by an agency to an end-user under an express contract with the agency, and the arrangement is not a sham, the worker is employed by the agency for the purposes of the CAWTR and AWR, notwithstanding that the end-user exercises operational control. The claimant was therefore entitled to bring claims against MCG for annual leave and equal treatment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The claimant is entitled to bring a claim against MCG under the CAWTR for payment in respect of annual leave.
  • The claimant is entitled to claim equal treatment as an agency worker under the AWR.