Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Ors

Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Ors

The Court held that the Employment Judge was entitled to find, based on the evidence, that the written substitution and right to refuse work clauses did not reflect the true agreement between the parties. The claimants were required to provide personal service, were subject to Autoclenz's control, and had mutual obligations with Autoclenz. Therefore, the claimants were employees under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Parties
Appellant: Autoclenz Ltd; Respondent: Belcher & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Contract of Employment, Worker Definition, Personal Service, Mutuality of Obligation, Right of Substitution, Sham Contracts
Employment Law Employment Status Contract of Employment Worker Definition Personal Service Mutuality of Obligation Right of Substitution Sham 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Autoclenz Ltd

Appellant

Belcher & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were employees, limb (b) workers, or self-employed contractors under the Employment Rights Act 1996 section 230
  2. 2 Whether the written contractual terms reflected the true agreement between the parties, specifically regarding personal service, right to refuse work, and right of substitution
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Judge and EAT applied the correct legal test for disregarding written terms as shams

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Employment Judge was entitled to find, based on the evidence, that the written substitution and right to refuse work clauses did not reflect the true agreement between the parties. The claimants were required to provide personal service, were subject to Autoclenz's control, and had mutual obligations with Autoclenz. Therefore, the claimants were employees under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • Employment Judge's decision restored: claimants are employees of Autoclenz Ltd
  • Claimants entitled to statutory employment rights as employees