Autoclenz Limited v Belcher and others

Autoclenz Limited v Belcher and others

The Supreme Court held that the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the claimants were workers under contracts of employment, as the written terms did not reflect the true agreement between the parties. The reality of the relationship involved mutual obligations and personal service, and the purported rights of substitution and lack of obligation were not genuine. The true agreement, as found by the Tribunal, was that the claimants were required to perform work personally and Autoclenz was obliged to provide work, thus satisfying the statutory definition of 'worker'.

Parties
Appellant: Autoclenz Limited; Respondents: Belcher and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Worker Status, Employment Contract, Minimum Wage, Working Time, Contractual Interpretation
Employment Law Worker Status Employment Contract Minimum Wage Working Time Contractual Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Autoclenz Limited

Appellant

Belcher and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were 'workers' under the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 and the Working Time Regulations 1998
  2. 2 Whether the written contract terms reflected the true agreement between the parties or could be disregarded in favour of the actual relationship

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the claimants were workers under contracts of employment, as the written terms did not reflect the true agreement between the parties. The reality of the relationship involved mutual obligations and personal service, and the purported rights of substitution and lack of obligation were not genuine. The true agreement, as found by the Tribunal, was that the claimants were required to perform work personally and Autoclenz was obliged to provide work, thus satisfying the statutory definition of 'worker'.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by Autoclenz Limited is dismissed.