Stack v Ajar-Tec Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 46 (05 February 2015)

Stack v Ajar-Tec Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 46 (05 February 2015)

The Employment Tribunal correctly found that Mr Stack was both an employee and a worker of Ajar-Tec Limited, based on an express agreement to perform work and an implied term of remuneration, supported by mutual consideration and business reality. The EAT erred in setting aside this determination by failing to recognise that contract formation may be partly express and partly implied, and that the mutual promises constituted sufficient consideration.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 46
Parties
Appellant: Robert Stack; Respondent: Ajar-Tec Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; EAT decision set aside; Employment Tribunal judgment restored
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Contract Formation, Implied Terms, Remuneration, Constructive Unfair Dismissal, Unauthorised Deduction From Wages
Employment Law Employment Status Contract Formation Implied Terms Remuneration Constructive Unfair Dismissal Unauthorised Deduction From Wages

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Stack

Appellant

Ajar-Tec Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Stack was an employee or worker of Ajar-Tec Limited
  2. 2 Whether there was a contract of employment or a contract for services
  3. 3 Whether remuneration was an express or implied term of the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal correctly found that Mr Stack was both an employee and a worker of Ajar-Tec Limited, based on an express agreement to perform work and an implied term of remuneration, supported by mutual consideration and business reality. The EAT erred in setting aside this determination by failing to recognise that contract formation may be partly express and partly implied, and that the mutual promises constituted sufficient consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; EAT decision set aside; Employment Tribunal judgment restored

Orders

  • Mr Stack is declared both an employee and a worker of Ajar-Tec Limited
  • Employment Tribunal's determination reinstated