Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie [2012] EWCA Civ 1735 (21 December 2012)

Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd v Quashie [2012] EWCA Civ 1735 (21 December 2012)

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that there was no contract of employment because the claimant took the economic risk, was paid by clients rather than the club, and there was no obligation on the club to pay her. The arrangement was consistent with self-employment, and the Tribunal's findings were not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1735
Parties
Appellant: Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd; Respondent: Nadine Quashie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal's decision restored
Legal Topics
Employment Status, Unfair Dismissal, Contract of Employment, Mutuality of Obligation, Control Test, Economic Reality Test
Employment Law Employment Status Unfair Dismissal Contract of Employment Mutuality of Obligation Control Test Economic Reality Test

Source-derived case record

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stringfellow Restaurants Ltd

Appellant

Nadine Quashie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was an employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient mutuality of obligation to constitute a contract of employment
  3. 3 Whether the claimant had the necessary period of continuous employment to claim unfair dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that there was no contract of employment because the claimant took the economic risk, was paid by clients rather than the club, and there was no obligation on the club to pay her. The arrangement was consistent with self-employment, and the Tribunal's findings were not perverse. The EAT erred in substituting its own view for that of the Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal's decision restored

Orders

  • The finding that the claimant was not employed under a contract of employment is restored.
  • The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim of unfair dismissal.