Soteriou v Ultrachem Ltd & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1597 (25 October 2002)

Soteriou v Ultrachem Ltd & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1597 (25 October 2002)

The claimant was the prime mover in structuring and maintaining the employment relationship to evade tax and national insurance, knowingly misrepresented his status to authorities, and therefore cannot enforce rights under the contract as it is tainted by illegality.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1597
Parties
Claimant/appellant: A G Soteriou; Defendant/respondent: Ultrachem Limited; Defendant/respondent: Solvo Limited; Defendant/respondent: Ultracolour Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Illegality in Contract, Employment Status, Public Policy, Tax Evasion, Enforceability of Employment Contracts
Employment Law Contract Law Illegality in Contract Employment Status Public Policy Tax Evasion Enforceability of Employment Contracts

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A G Soteriou

Claimant/appellant

Ultrachem Limited

Defendant/respondent

Solvo Limited

Defendant/respondent

Ultracolour Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract of employment tainted by illegality is enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the claimant can claim employment rights when the contract was structured to evade tax and national insurance
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal made sufficient findings of fact to support its conclusion of illegality

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was the prime mover in structuring and maintaining the employment relationship to evade tax and national insurance, knowingly misrepresented his status to authorities, and therefore cannot enforce rights under the contract as it is tainted by illegality.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal is refused.