Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Khan v David [2025] EWHC 3041 (KB) (16 October 2025)
The High Court found the defendant in contempt for deliberately failing to comply with freezing orders requiring asset disclosure and an affidavit, and adjourned the matter for committal.
The tribunal erred in concluding there was sufficient mutuality of obligation to establish employment and that the right of substitution was impracticable; its findings on worker and employee status were insufficiently supported or explained and conflicted with other findings. The finding that the contract was with the claimant personally stands, but the conclusions on worker and employee status are quashed.
Source excerpt
The Employment Tribunal's finding that the substitution clause was not genuine and did not reflect the true agreement between the parties was based on credible evidence, practical realities, and the absence of any actual use of substitutes over 25 years. The Tribunal did not err in law by its treatment of witness evidence or substitution interactions, and its conclusion that the claimants were 'workers' was rational and inevitable.
Source excerpt
The High Court struck out two contempt applications brought by Sandra Dennerlein against Barclays Bank UK PLC and James David Hart for procedural defects, abuse of process, and no reasonable grounds.
The EAT held the tribunal wrongly treated earlier employee-status findings as decisive on worker status and remitted the case to decide the client-or-customer issue.
The claimant was not required to provide personal service under the contract, which allowed substitution of drivers. The contract was genuine and reflected the relationship, and there were no distinguishing features from prior cases. Therefore, the claimant was not a worker or employee under section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.
Source excerpt
Mr Lutz was a 'crew member' employed by MCG for CAWR purposes and an 'agency worker' under AWR because the factual reality and contractual arrangements established an employment relationship under EU law, the right of substitution was a sham or so fettered as to require personal service, and the supply was for a fixed term and thus temporary. The ET's findings were supported by law and evidence, and the appeals disclosed no error of law.
Source excerpt
The High Court held that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was personally served, had no good reason to miss the hearing, and could face a bench warrant for the contempt hearing.
Hijazi v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 1991 (KB) (30 July 2024)
The High Court held that Mr Yaxley-Lennon was personally served with a contempt application, had no good reason to be absent, and could be proceeded against in his absence.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed a writer’s appeal, upholding findings that she was neither a worker nor an employee for discrimination purposes.
Explore more
