Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak & Ors

Consistent Group Ltd v Kalwak & Ors

The Employment Tribunal's decision was set aside because it failed to provide adequate reasons for its findings, particularly in relation to conflicting evidence and the conclusion that the contract was a sham. The Tribunal did not properly address the principles for finding a sham or explain why it rejected the express terms of the contract. The case was remitted for a rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

Parties
Appellant: Consistent Group Limited; First Respondent: K Kalwak and Others; Second Respondent: Welsh Country Foods Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal and EAT decisions set aside; case remitted for rehearing
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Sham Contracts, Mutuality of Obligation, Reasoning Requirements for Tribunals
Employment Law Employment Status Sham Contracts Mutuality of Obligation Reasoning Requirements for Tribunals

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consistent Group Limited

Appellant

K Kalwak and Others

First Respondent

Welsh Country Foods Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written contract between the claimants and Consistent Group Limited was a sham and did not reflect the true employment relationship
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its findings, particularly in relation to conflicting evidence
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient mutuality of obligation to constitute a contract of employment

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal's decision was set aside because it failed to provide adequate reasons for its findings, particularly in relation to conflicting evidence and the conclusion that the contract was a sham. The Tribunal did not properly address the principles for finding a sham or explain why it rejected the express terms of the contract. The case was remitted for a rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal and EAT decisions set aside; case remitted for rehearing

Orders

  • Set aside the order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Employment Tribunal
  • Direct a rehearing of the relevant issues before a differently constituted employment tribunal